Ohio, a state that is bleeding jobs left and right, has the Most Poverty Stricken City in the nation in a recent tally (we love you Cleveland!), has a giant mis-used lake front, loses more college graduates than it gains and has some of the worst school districts in the country has decided that it's #1 priority is...a gay marriage amendment (to ban them, that is). Yes, State Issue 1 is the proposed Amendment to ban gay marriage in a state that already has a hard time attracting a wide variety of people.
But even the biggest gay-(-hating, -fearing, -whatever...someone who doesn't like gay people) are having a hard time backing this one. Two prominent Republican congressmen (Voinovich and Dewine) are against the proposed amendment, which I find surprising.
Here is the wording:
"Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage."
I am curious if even the anti-gay marriage folks on Hatrack could get behind our fine amendment in Ohio as written.
fil
[ October 10, 2004, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The second line would need to be omitted. I am for calling the Union between a MAN and WOMAN as marriage, but against not giving Gays a doorway to have their own representative union, call it whatever you want.
Gays deserve the same rights as married couples IMHO, but there does need to be a distinguishing difference between the two for census purposes.
There are legal ramifications as well.
In a Man/Woman marriage with children the biological state of parentage of the female holds some weight in child custody hearings.
If the union is woman/woman or male/male, the biological nature of those children becomes a question as well. Do you treat the non-biological mother as a father? What if they both have at least one of the children biologically? Do you then split them up according to biological ties? What if it is two men but one father is biologically linked with the child but the other is not?
Basically I am for the legalization of "Unions" (or whatever they decide to call themselves) because that is fair to both sides.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As the census collects the sexes of the people in the household, no, no such distinction is necessary for its purposes. Even if they were all called marriages, it would still be trivial to differentiate between those of two men, those of two women, and those of mixed sexes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Marital law already has methods for handling children whose biological parents only include 1 parent in the marriage. The only difference I see required by biology is that the irrebuttable presumption in some states that a child born to a woman whose husband is not overseas is the biological child of the father would have to be dealt with. This means that even a DNA test will not sever the father's rights and responsibilities with respect to such a child. Clearly, such a presumption makes little sense in a homosexual marriage.
As for noting the sex of each partner on the marriage license, that's probably a good idea. It's already done, since we have to indicate which is the husband and which the wife. Change that to generic "Sex?" check boxes and we're done.
My preference would be to call the civilly recorded and recognized aspect of marriages "civil unions", whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. But at this point, if that's what it takes to achieve legal protection for gay couples, I'd accept calling them both marriages or calling homosexual marriages "civil unions." But, it would be necessary that a "civil union" has the exact same rights as a "marriage" does, and that the law is set up so that precedents which apply to one apply to the other. In other words, a legally meaningless distinction in names is acceptable IF that is what it takes to achieve equal rights.
In a generation, they both (the legal aspect, that is) would have the same common names anyway.
Dagonee
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
For census purposes......bah. As long as they don't hit on me I'm fine. Let people do what they want to. Not that I'm completely fine with such, but I like people to leave off my back so I will leave off theirs.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
But they should be listed separately for the same reason we track race. Yes they have the same rights, but race is recorded as well and has been a great help in determining where wrongfulness has occurred do to race.
Hate crimes legislation exists because of a recognition of differences.
Also, when 60% plus in the most liberal polls oppose gay marriage itself (and more approve of officially protecting it) you can't tell the citizens the have no say in the democratic process of their countries.
I am for the continued defining of marriage as between a man and woman and for the legalization of same sex "unions" or whatever.
But I disagree on the watering down of the terms in a generation.
We still call men, men and women, women because of the differences and dynamics between them.
I don't see what the problem is calling marriages, "marriages" and calling unions, "unions".
That way both parties are happy (to a degree at least) and you don't exclude one or the other.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I think that amendment is vile, personally; it's blatantly seeking to deny gay people their civil rights. Louisiana passed an amendment similar to this one (maybe identical, I'm not sure) not too long ago, but it was overruled as being unconstitutional, thank god.
[ October 10, 2004, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: Stray ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
And it was overruled because of it's second clause denying them the ability to seek equal rights, same as the one above.
If you remove the second line, is it as "vile" to you?
[ October 10, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see what the problem is calling marriages, "marriages" and calling unions, "unions".
So what exactly is the problem with calling both "unions?" Should we have come up with a new word for "citizen" to use for ex-slaves after Dredd Scott was finally disposed of?
No. "Citizen" had a legal meaning that now included ex-slaves. If "unions" provide the exact same rights as "marriages," why should not fold them into the currently existing legal name? And if they don't provide the exact same rights, then they're not really creating equality, are they?
My preference for changing both comes from a recognition that the word "marriage" now has a severelt bifurcated set of meanings - one legal, one "personal" or "spiritual" or "religious." But if they're the same thing legally, why should they be called something different?
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Then why not legally call all people "it's" or "humans" or just "citizen or non-citizen" instead of "Men and Women"?
Why differentiate between the two dagonee? Why note whether you are a man or woman legally if they have the same rights?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because the difference between a man and a woman does have legal significance.
Can you provide any aspect of marriage law that doesn't apply equally to gay and straight marriages except the one example I provided above?
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
So does race and sexual preference. Read hate crimes legislation as to sexual preference and it's relativity to such bills.
Please refer to why men/women have "legal significance" that is required instead of just "citizen" or "human", etc.
What legally necessitates the listing of gender legally of a particular person, being that they both have completely equal rights?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because it's a very good means to help identify people.
Plus, only women can give birth. And only men can get prostate cancer. And a host of other differences that are relevant to different aspects of the law.
I simply await your pointing out a single difference, other than the one I pointed out above, in how gay and straight marriages would be different under the law.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Also, what legally necessitates the listing of "Race" as well being that all races are legally completely equal?
Should all "race" references legally be removed and replaced with "citizen" or "human" as well as what sex a person is?
Why not replace all man/woman/race references with a simple "human" or "citizen"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Identification. As I said above, and as you haven't yet even deigned to comment on.
[ October 10, 2004, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Further, when they make a law that applies equally to all people, they don't say "All whites, blacks, Asians, and other races..." or "All men and women..." They say, "All persons..."
If all the laws regarding marriage apply to all marriages equally, why have the distinction? Since you want this to be like all the other laws and all.
Dagonee
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Not all women can have babies and not all men get prostate cancer.
Still not enough of a reason to continue using the different labels, but except the same for Homosexual unions.
quote: I simply await your pointing out a single difference, other than the one I pointed out above, in how gay and straight marriages would be different under the law.
That there is a Man/Man and Woman/Woman difference is not an obvious one? Or that alone no Man/Man relationship can create a child and no Woman/woman relationship can create a child. It requires third party intervention in all cases.
True, some heterosexual couples cannot conceive naturally, but that is due to biological abnormalities or problems.
I think the argument to change one is an arguement to change the other.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Mad Brainwave!
Let's take an "r" out of marriage. I mean, we don't need it there. The French don't. In any case; straight couples can be married and gay/lesbian couples can be maried.
(This is not, I repeat NOT, meant to be taken as a serious suggestion).
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Identification. As I said above, and as you haven't yet even deigned to comment on.
Ditto on Homosexual unions as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
When they make a law that applies equally to all people, they don't say "All whites, blacks, Asians, and other races..." or "All men and women..." They say, "All persons..."
Since you seemed to miss it the first time around.
You still haven't provided a single reason for using a different name.
Dagonee
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
If sex and whether two people are married or not are noted in the census, why does there need to be a different term for gay marriage? It seems like it would be fairly simple to see that if two people are of the same sex and they are married that they are a gay married couple, no?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey, I've been asking him that for 5 posts now. No response except men are different than women.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: When they make a law that applies equally to all people, they don't say "All whites, blacks, Asians, and other races..." or "All men and women..." They say, "All persons..."
And when they make Hate Crimes or discrimination legislation, what do they say?
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
Maybe if more and more people ask over and over again he'll give an answer. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, I'm about to hoist you on your own petard. Brace for it.
quote: Not all women can have babies and not all men get prostate cancer. Still not enough of a reason to continue using the different labels, but accept the same for Homosexual unions.
... That there is a Man/Man and Woman/Woman difference is not an obvious one? Or that alone no Man/Man relationship can create a child and no Woman/woman relationship can create a child. It requires third party intervention in all cases.
True, some heterosexual couples cannot conceive naturally, but that is due to biological abnormalities or problems.
Do you see it?
If not, here it is: the objection you drew to using sex to determine the likelihood of giving birth or developing prostate cancer -- that it wouldn't happen to everyone -- is the same exception that you argue is irrelevant "due to biological abnormalities or problems" when used as a reason not to consider childbearing potential a fundamental argument against same-sex marriage.
Besides, as Dag points out, there's no reason to CARE about childrearing potential beyond the assumption of paternity, which is easily enough addressed -- unless, of course, you intend (contrary to what you've said) to discriminate against civil unions by maintaining their inferior status (compared to "real" marriages) in some way, perhaps related to child-rearing. Is it your intent, when civil unions become a reality, to discriminate against them in this fashion? If not, why do you care whether they bear children or not?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
For the same reason they ask whether one is a man or woman. Although they have equal rights, their are differences which I pointed out.
Dagonee said men and women should be legally listed differently because only Women can have Babies and only Men can have prostate cancer. Which doesn't include Women who can't have children and men who don't have prostates, but are still Men and Women just the same.
Well only a Man and a Woman can create a baby. It is a physically impossible thing for a Man to have sex with a man and produce a child. It is also an impossibility for a woman to have sex with a woman and create a child.
It requires the introduction of third parties.
That is a difference, whether you continue to ignore it or not.
There is absolutely NO reason to list "Race" either, but we do for identification.
I have given very good evidence as to why "unions" should be listed as such as well.
If not then Race and Gender should also be removed by the same arguments.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I have given very good evidence as to why 'unions' should be listed as such as well."
Chad, I think a number of the posts in this thread are, in fact, attempting to determine the quality of your evidence. You may be presuming too much, here.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: If sex and whether two people are married or not are noted in the census, why does there need to be a different term for gay marriage? It seems like it would be fairly simple to see that if two people are of the same sex and they are married that they are a gay married couple, no?
I've answered this already. For the SAME reason Race or Gender is listed.
I've made this abundantly clear.
Now answer why Race and Gender should be tracked but homosexual unions NOT be tracked as different because the arguements are the same for both.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And when they make Hate Crimes or discrimination legislation, what do they say?
Well, the federal government says:
quote:18 USCS § 245(b) Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, by force or threat of force willfully injures, intimidates or interferes with, or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with-- (1) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from-- (A) voting or qualifying to vote, qualifying or campaigning as a candidate for elective office, or qualifying or acting as a poll watcher, or any legally authorized election official, in any primary, special, or general election; (B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility, or activity provided or administered by the United States; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any agency of the United States; (D) serving, or attending upon any court in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror in any court of the United States; (E) participating in or enjoying the benefits of any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance; or (2) any person because of his race, color, religion or national origin and because he is or has been-- (A) enrolling in or attending any public school or public college; (B) participating in or enjoying any benefit, service, privilege, program, facility or activity provided or administered by any State or subdivision thereof; (C) applying for or enjoying employment, or any perquisite thereof, by any private employer or any agency of any State or subdivision thereof, or joining or using the services or advantages of any labor organization, hiring hall, or employment agency; (D) serving, or attending upon any court of any State in connection with possible service, as a grand or petit juror; (E) traveling in or using any facility of interstate commerce, or using any vehicle, terminal, or facility of any common carrier by motor, rail, water, or air; (F) enjoying the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or of any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility which serves the public and which is principally engaged in selling food or beverages for consumption on the premises, or of any gasoline station, or of any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium, or any other place of exhibition or entertainment which serves the public, or of any other establishment which serves the public and (i) which is located within the premises of any of the aforesaid establishments or within the premises of which is physically located any of the aforesaid establishments, and (ii) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such establishments; or (3) during or incident to a riot or civil disorder, any person engaged in a business in commerce or affecting commerce, including, but not limited to, any person engaged in a business which sells or offers for sale to interstate travelers a substantial portion of the articles, commodities, or services which it sells or where a substantial portion of the articles or commodities which it sells or offers for sale have moved in commerce; or (4) any person because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from-- (A) participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F); or (B) affording another person or class of persons opportunity or protection to so participate; or (5) any citizen because he is or has been, or in order to intimidate such citizen or any other citizen from lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin, in any of the benefits or activities described in subparagraphs (1)(A) through (1)(E) or subparagraphs (2)(A) through (2)(F), or participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly opposing any denial of the opportunity to so participate--
shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. As used in this section, the term "participating lawfully in speech or peaceful assembly" shall not mean the aiding, abetting, or inciting of other persons to riot or to commit any act of physical violence upon any individual or against any real or personal property in furtherance of a riot. Nothing in subparagraph (2)(F) or (4)(A) of this subsection shall apply to the proprietor of any establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, or to any employee acting on behalf of such proprietor, with respect to the enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of such establishment if such establishment is located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor as his residence.
Let's see...the word "black" isn't in there. The word "white" isn't in there. The word "Asian" isn't in there. The word "man" isn't in there. The word "woman" isn't in there.
The word "whoever" is, though.
Dagonee
[ October 10, 2004, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think this is the sort of argument that is so blatantly obvious to the other side that it is impossible to see the other side.
The arguments:
"Why shouldn't different things have different names?"
and
"Why shouldn't something that differs only in something we've decided to consider equal have a different name?"
How can you argue that one is right and one is wrong? It's impossible, and matters only in opinion. In this case my Mad Brainwave has meaning, we are quibbling, essentially over an "r", over names.
Does a marriage by any other name smell as sweet? It is completely a matter of opinion.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Besides, as Dag points out, there's no reason to CARE about childrearing potential beyond the assumption of paternity,
Nor is there a reason to track Gender and/or Race if Racially all are equal and Sexual Gender wise we are all equal.
There is no benefit to listing whether one is a woman/man/black/white the same as for homosexual unions/marriages.
In fact the biological ability or probability of such to produce children from a union is a HUGE deal and much greater than anything that supports Gender/Racial listing.
But both Gender and Race are listed and used in legallity.
You can't claim one should be done away with but let's keep the others despite the same arguements against.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've answered this already. For the SAME reason Race or Gender is listed.
I've made this abundantly clear.
Now answer why Race and Gender should be tracked but homosexual unions NOT be tracked as different because the arguements are the same for both.
I see. It's impossible to count the number of male/male, female/female, and female/male couples if we don't have a different word for two of those combinations than the third?
My point, and the accompanying question, remain very clear, very simple, and very unanswered. IF there is no legal difference between male/male, female/female, and female/male unions, why shouldn't the law use a generic term that covers all three with a single word. Just like we use the word "person" when making laws that affect different types of people differently.
You do realize that laws regarding parenthood, with the one exception mentioned above, are currently generally distinct from laws regarding marriage, right?
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, the point they're making is that we track gender and race for identification and informational purposes -- and that it would be possible for us to identify a gay marriage, even if we called it "marriage," simply by observing the sexes of the people involved. In other words, there's no need to come up with a separate term for informational purposes, since gender is tracked anyway and provides the same information.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
You are giving the descriptions of discrimination, but you failed to see where is says based on RACE
quote: lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion
And
quote: participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin,
Perhaps you can elaborate on what "Races" they are referring to here Dagonee.
Thanks for posting how Race is a factor in legislation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nor is there a reason to track Gender and/or Race if Racially all are equal and Sexual Gender wise we are all equal.
There is no benefit to listing whether one is a woman/man/black/white the same as for homosexual unions/marriages.
In fact the biological ability or probability of such to produce children from a union is a HUGE deal and much greater than anything that supports Gender/Racial listing.
But both Gender and Race are listed and used in legallity.
You can't claim one should be done away with but let's keep the others despite the same arguements against.
Do you realize there's a difference between the laws, and the forms they use to gather information for regulatory and record-keeping purposes?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You are giving the descriptions of discrimination, but you failed to see where is says based on RACE
quote: lawfully aiding or encouraging other persons to participate, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion
And
quote: participating, without discrimination on account of race, color, religion or national origin,
Perhaps you can elaborate on what "Races" they are referring to here Dagonee.
Thanks for posting how Race is a factor in legislation.
How is race a factor in this legislation? It says race CAN'T be used as a factor.
And note that it didn't need a different word for people of different races, even though it's talking about race. Just like we don't need a different word for legal marriages, even though we're talking about people with different combinations of sex.
Dagonee
Just like we don't need
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: IF there is no legal difference between male/male, female/female, and female/male unions, why shouldn't the law use a generic term that covers all three with a single word. Just like we use the word "person" when making laws that affect different types of people differently
I answered your question and you ignored it. Don't do it again.
As I have stated and made ABUNDANTLY clear. If there is no LEGAL difference between a Man and a Woman or between a Black, White, Green or Blue person then WHY TRACK IT ALSO?
Your blatantly flawed argument is that we should continue to identify the differences between Men and Women and Blacks/Whites etc. although no LEGAL difference exists between them as according to rights, but that we shouldn't list Marriages and Unions as different even though Biologically one is absolutely incapable of producing a child through sex. A biological scientific difference. A Fact.
That you argue that one should be listed and the other not defies credibility.
Well, I've answered repeatedly and you have failed completely to defend the continued legal distinctions between Men/Women and Races, but not the distinction between Homosexual Unions and Heterosexual Marriages of which I have provided biological evidence that differentiates them on a scientifically provable scale.
Which makes the tracking of such differences so much more of a reason than Race and similar reasons for listing gender.
But then again, maybe you all believe that Homosexual Sex can produce children.
I wouldn't be suprised.
Good night and come back when you have an argument which defends the distinctions of gender/race but doesn't also defend the distinctons of Homosexual Unions/Heterosexual marriages.
So far none has been presented at all.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: How is race a factor in this legislation? It says race CAN'T be used as a factor.
And note that it didn't need a different word for people of different races, even though it's talking about race. Just like we don't need a different word for legal marriages, even though we're talking about people with different combinations of sex.
Dagonee
Just like we don't need
Without the distinction in RACE the law doesn't exist and no reason for it exists.
The law exists because it RECOGNIZES the differences of race.
I can't believe you say race isn't a factor when the whole law you quoted is BASED ON RACE and defining how RACE is used in discrimination.
It's right there. You posted it.
It's a LAW based on RACE.
Again, it's a LAW based on RACE.
One last time so I don't have to answer the same question thrice:
It's a LAW based on RACE. Which without the racial distincitions and differences, WOULD NOT EXIST.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
He posted it, but you don't seem to have read it...
And somehow everyone else is so stupid as to think that homosexual sex produces children? (Which isn't really related to the point here)
Bravo, Chad. We salute you.
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
quote: I answered your question and you ignored it. Don't do it again.
This made me laugh out loud. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
how is the law based on race? Does a black person have any rights under that law that a white person doesn't? Does a white person have any rights based on that law that a black person doesn't?
Is a white person prohibited from doing anything under that law that a black person is not prohibited from doing?
So please explain how this law is based on race. Also, please take extra special note of the fact that the law managed to use the same word to refer to black people and white people.
Moreover, I'd be really interested if you could point to any marriage laws, other than the ones that simply say "marriage is between a man and a woman," that make distinctions based on sex.
With very, very, very few exceptions, there are no laws that give men and women different rights in marriage. Laws related to parenthood make a single distinction, basically: are both biological parents married to each other? If yes, do A. If No, do B. Both types of laws are needed for dealing with man/woman situations. The same exact framework works perfectly well for man/man and woman/woman marriages as well.
You've pointed out a difference between straight couples and gay couples: some members of the first set can have children together, no members of the second set can. What you've absolutely, utterly failed to do is provide any guiding prinicple for why THIS factual difference should lead to a different word being used for marriages belonging to the different sets.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Is anyone not pro-family?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I am curious if even the anti-gay marriage folks on Hatrack could get behind our fine amendment in Ohio as written.
While I don't feel like participating in this lovely little discussion, I'll answer the original question.
Utah has a very similar consitutional amendment on the ballot:
quote: Constitutional Amendment 3 Joint Resolution on Marriage Shall the Utah Constitution be amended to provide that: (1) marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman; and (2) no other domestic union may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equal legal effect?
To my untrained eye, they seem pretty much the same.
I plan on voting for Amendment 3.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Is that question mark supposed to be there?
Edit: I'm actually serious. Do you vote yes/no for both 1 and 2 or can you vote for 1 and against 2?
[ October 11, 2004, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
1 and 2 are both part of the same ammendment proposal. It's all or nothing. You can read more about it here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If it's like California amendments, the question mark is indeed supposed to be there -- as part of the question which began, "Shall the Utah Constitution be amended . . . ?"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's how it looks to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
LA put a similar measure on the ballot, which passed overwhelmingly. However, Louisiana also has a law which forbids measures doing more than one distinct thing being put on the ballot as one measure, so it got struck down as being illegally on the ballot shortly after the vote.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: However, Louisiana also has a law which forbids measures doing more than one distinct thing being put on the ballot as one measure, so it got struck down as being illegally on the ballot shortly after the vote.
Interesting....
I know that as a Utah resident I wish those two items could be voted on separately. Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
I am pro-family.
I believe that homosexual activity is sinful. I believe that in the eternal scheme of things, ultimately, a homosexual union is tragic simply because it can never be eternally bound. Even the most profound lifelong relationship is doomed to end at death. This is all wrapped up in my LDS theology, and has been explained elsewhere.
Here is why the second part of both amendments bothers me:
I understand and accept that many people have a very different belief system than I do. Those who enter into a lifelong commitment should have certain abilities to claim insurance benefits, inheritance, etc. They should have some legal protection to that effect. I think the second part of those amendments could make such things very difficult.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Wow. Amka, you just stated exactly how I feel on the matter. You wanna be my spokeswoman?
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
I personally do not believe that it should legally be called marriage for any couple. I think marriage is a religious union not a legal one. So why not have civil unions for everyone?
Posted by RRR (Member # 6601) on :
Because some people don't believe that marriage is solely a religious union.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
But isn't it the "religious" portions of the definition of marriage that is leading people to proposed denying some type of union to same-sex couples?
RRR it seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways. (However I've been known to be slow, so feel free to show me the error of my ways.) Why must we call it marriage because many people believe that marriage describes more than a religious union? The opposite does make sense to me though. I can't see anyone proposing that "civil union" would have religious connotations.
What am I missing here?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Because some people don't believe that marriage is solely a religious union.
This is exactly why I favor going to civil unions for everyone. Marriage means too many different things to too many different people to have a version of it embodied in law that will please everyone, or even a significant plurality.
As a society, we recognize that certain legal benefits, rights, and obligations should come into existence when two people decide to join into a union intended to be lifelong. This legal structure exsists because it is helps people form such unions.
Beyond those legal structures though, there's no real consensus on the topic. Everyone attaches their own significance to his or her marriage. I think we should just recognize that phenomenon.
If "civil union" refers to the legal consequences of a marriage, and "marriage" refers to the everything else that participants bring into it, then we already have gay marriage in this country. We just don't have civil unions.
Stripping the legal aspects of marriage of everything not directly related to them will create a legal institution that represents all views of marriage equally. We say, "not only does the civil institution of marriage not reflect any one or group of religious interpretations of marriage, it reflects nothing beyond what is needed to make it function legally. All extraneous meaning is added by the participants, whether that meaning derives from faith, sentiment, or anything else."
Dagonee
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
quote:As a society, we recognize that certain legal benefits, rights, and obligations should come into existence when two people decide to join into a union intended to be lifelong. This legal structure exists because it is helps people form such unions.
Dagonee,
Please don’t see this is as an attack. I'm truly curious.
Have you run across specific precedent or language that supports the fact that property law (or any other field for that matter) is specifically designed to favor the social institution of marriage? I definitely see that one of the consequences of laws that allows "couples" to be represented tend to support the institution, but I wasn't aware that any body of law was specifically designed for that purpose. Is there some historical reference behind your statement above? (I’m sorry if this is obvious…I’m not always as well informed as I’d like to be.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't have a lot of time to go into it - I'm getting ready for an interview. Historically, there were many laws designed to protect the integrity of the couple. Even when the laws heavily favored the husband's rights over the wife's, it provided for curtesy, which guaranteed the wife 1/3 of the estate for life upon the husband's death, in order that she might live without her previous means of support. This concepts exists only in the context of marriage. Some vestige still exists In many states, a surviving spouse is guaranteed a certain percentage of the estate.
Other instances include Tenancy in the Entirety, which is a type of title in land that prevents either spouse from assigning the land without permission of the other. While this sounds like a restriction, it's actual a very powerful tool, because it means the land cannot be attached to fulfill a debt owed by only one spouse.
These are two concrete examples. There are countless others, in property law and out.
Does this answer your question?
Dagonee Edit: These are meant to be examples of special laws aimed at providing specific protections for married persons. I'm obviously inferring the motive behind these laws as being to assist marriages.
[ October 11, 2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Dagonee,
Thanks for the reply. I certainly didn't mean to get in the way of honest work. My query is more of an "I always wondered" nature.
I'm not sure that you caught exactly what I was asking. It may also be that it doesn't matter one way or the other. I'll try to rephrase more clearly. Maybe you'll get a chance later to set me straight.
I understand your examples and the way that they protect the institution of marriage. I've seen Tenancy in the Entirety up close a personal.
The phrase the caught my attention above, however, was "This legal structure exists because it is helps people form such unions". This implies somewhat (but I don't believe it was your intention) that the law was written when the institution of marriage may have been seen as weak or eroding, with the specific intent to strengthen that institution.
My thought is that it is difficult to determine which institution was influencing the other. The body of law grew in an environment where the religious institutions existed and vice versa.
Taking the example of Tenancy in the Entirety:
If I were trying to state that the lawmaker designed the law to promote the institution of marriage I would have him say, "If I make this law, people will get married more often because it will strengthen their joint property rights".
If I were trying to state that the lawmaker was trying to make laws to conform to already existing institutions of marriage I would have him say, "Married people are getting a bum rap. If I make this law, people who are married won't be individually responsible for the financial irresponsibility of the other party".
So specifically I was asking: Have you seen evidence of lawmakers trying to build the institution of marriage or just supporting the institution, as it exists.
I know that this is primarily a semantic question. It probably doesn't have any bearing on the actual question at hand. In addition, I believe that you weren't trying to make the assertion that lawmakers are trying to design society in the beginning. However, I thought that you might have seen support for that assertion (social engineering?) as well, and I just wondered…
Good luck with your interview. See you on the flip side, maybe.
Rubble
[ October 11, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: This is exactly why I favor going to civil unions for everyone.
Dagonee, you've made you views clear of how you think things ought to be, but do you think there is any chance of abolishing marriage as a legal institution in America, and replacing it with civil unions?
To save time, I'm going to assume that the answer is no. If I'm wrong, feel free to give me 40 lashes with a wet noodle.
If it's never going to happen, why do you even bother to keep brining it up?
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
At some point in the history of the world abolition of slavery seemed impossible to imagine.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I believe that some European countries already separate legal and religious marriage. People who want both get legally married at the registrar’s office and then go to church for the ceremony. I seem to recall Anna writing about that in her wedding thread. So it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
Speaking as someone who officiates at weddings, I’ve always found it a little weird that I’m acting as a representative both of the state and of the church in that function. It’s the only time when clergy function as a representative of the state, and there’s just a little cognitive dissonance in it for me. The “separation of church and state” supporter in me is a tad bit squicked by it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There are a lot of things that could/do happen in Europe that just wouldn't fly here. We have a very different culture from Europe.
I personally cannot envision enough politicians in America ever being willing to face the backlash of "destroying marriage", which is what it would be called by opponents.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
ANAL, but I don't see how judges could ever abloish marriage entirely just because they think it would be better if it were abolished.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
I'm also totally in favor of separating the legal and personal/religious meanings of marriage, and see no reason why we shouldn't have the same "civil union" setup for both straight and gay couples. I don't know how likely it is that that'll happen, though, at least in my lifetime, Dagonee's right that opponents of it would scream about "destroying marriage."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me clarify. Let's suppose that Dagonee is correct, and that things would be better if marriage were abolished and civil unions implemented.
Even if that is a better solution, how does that make marriages unconstitutional (wouldn't they have to be deemed unconstitutional for the courts to throw them down?)?
For example, how can marriage be declared unconstitional in Utah if the Utah Constitution specifically discusses marriage, and the rights of married women?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ahem. It wasn't Dagonee that said that.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Nobody wants to abolish marriage. That’s not what Dag is suggesting at all. He’s talking about separating out the legal aspects of marriage and calling that part of it a “civil union.”
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Whether he is or not, it would be interpreted by many as trying to abolish/destroy marriage.
[ October 11, 2004, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
m_p_h, to those that feel that way, my emotional response is similar to Andy Dufresne's response to the Warden in Shawshank Redemption, "How can you be so obtuse?"
Given the rationale that the religious aspects of marriage will be left untouched by state powers, how can people think that the change to legal civil unions will destroy marriage? I grant it will "destroy" one definition of it... But in the grand scheme of things, especially in the eyes of most objectors, it's the least important definition. Or am I off on this assumption?
-Bok
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It doesn't matter if you are right, and it doesn't matter if people are being obtuse.
There are many, many people who feel that traditional values are very much under attack, and it will be far too easy to inflame their passions by trying to pass something that can be interpreted as an attempt to "abolish marriage" or "destroy marriage".
Calling people obtuse doesn't help the situation at all. These are real people with real feelings and real fears. Discounting their fears and feelings as invalid doesn't do anybody any good.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Looking at it from a mathematical perspective:
If "Marriage" = X rights and priveledges and "Civil Union" = X rights and priveledges then Marriage = X = Civil Union. So legally you wouldn't be able to treat them any differently, even if they apply to two different groups of people.
This is why I can't comprehend the people that are making the "semantic" argument about "well I'm ok with civil unions". I wish I could understand it, but I can't force my logic proces to go there.
To say you are ok with civil unions means, that you are imposing a semantic difference on a group of people, but otherwise they are exactly equal legally. But if they are exactly equal legally then there isn't any *real* difference.
And if there is no *real* difference then it doesn't matter what it is called so you might as well call it all one thing or all the other for the sake of what is on the law books now.
AJ
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I personally cannot envision enough politicians in America ever being willing to face the backlash of "destroying marriage", which is what it would be called by opponents.
So far, not a single politician that I know of has been held responsible for destroying any other marriages but their own. Marriages are frequently destroyed in this country to an alarming level considering all the hand wringing about the destruction of marriage by homosexuals.
But that is an aside, of course. To bring it back to the amendment proposed. I have heard that Ohio's is stricter than most because it adds the bit about not allowing situations that "approximate the design" of marriage, either.
The thought on this and why Ohio Republicans are even opposing it is because it will effect those businesses in the state that give domestic partner benefits to live-in couples (gay or straight, by the way). In short, it won't be just effecting a man and a man or woman and woman living together but any relationship that isn't considered "marriage." There are couples with children that aren't married (in the poorer neighborhoods I work in, this is largely the case) and one wonders how interpreting this amendment will effect those situations as well.
It seems that in trying to go for the big fat kill, the extreme right has shot themselves in the foot with an amendment that will probably not stand the test of voters (one can hope) because it goes TOO far in attacking homosexuals. It is one thing to say that "marriage" in a legal sense only belongs to one man and one woman, but to then go the extra distance and try to make it impossible for some of the rights and benefits to be replicated in some way...well, too far by any account.
I am wondering if Ohio voters will look that far. As MPH pointed out, people are obtuse because their passions get in the way of critical thinking. For some reason, it is easier to put the burden of a successful marriage on the shoulders of as-yet married gay men vs. looking into their own house. People can't even begin to explain how two women getting married and benefits of that marriage will effect them...but by golly, it will. Hmmm...now that I think about it, Ohio may be in a world of hurt, too.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Banna...your math is missing some bits in the equation. Marriage = Rights + Privileges+ Responsibility + Endorsement by (insert religious Icon Here) + Ceremony + Showers + Cake + (ad nauseum).
Civil Union = Rights and priviledges.
That's it. Dag said it best...marriage means so many different things to so many different people so they are not the same. To the LAW they are the same, because the law doesn't care if your marrying person is a priest, a rabbi, a high priestess or (insert appropriately recognized religious leader title). The law doesn't care how many invites went out. It doesn't care if God was even mentioned. It does make a distinction as to WHO can be married, though, and in a country of equal rights and pursuit of happiness and all that, that dog just don't hunt.
Do more math, but don't forget all the variables.
fil
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Is anyone not pro-family?
Good question. I put it in quotes in the thread title because it is a loaded word...like "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and "pro-war."
Like those descriptions, it depends. What one thinks of oneself and what one thinks of another person are two entirely different ideas. I am pro-family because I think this, this and this. Because you think this, this and THAT...well, you clearly aren't pro-family.
Meaning, I doubt anyone on here thinks of themselves as anything but pro-family but would clearly think that some of the other posters clearly aren't.
fil
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
fil I was looking at it from the legal standpoint only. The rights and priveledges are the legal definition. I (as a heterosexual) could go to the courthouse with my bf, and fill out a marriage license and have a judge or justice of the peace sign it, and we would be just as married as if all of the ad nauseum stuff had been tossed in. The legal rights and priveledges *are* the minimum definition of marriage. All of the cultural/religious stuff could (and do) happen with or without the signing of that peice of paper.
AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"These are real people with real feelings and real fears."
Yes, but these are stupid people with stupid feelings and stupid fears. It seems counterproductive to hold the whole country hostage to their stupidity, doesn't it?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: It is one thing to say that "marriage" in a legal sense only belongs to one man and one woman, but to then go the extra distance and try to make it impossible for some of the rights and benefits to be replicated in some way...well, too far by any account.
Yup. That's about where I stand.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Marriage = Rights + Privileges+ Responsibility + Endorsement by (insert religious Icon Here) + Ceremony + Showers + Cake + (ad nauseum).
Those last few are pats of a wedding, not a marriage.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Yes, but these are stupid people with stupid feelings and stupid fears. It seems counterproductive to hold the whole country hostage to their stupidity, doesn't it?
I am absolutely not able to express my feelings for this vile, mean-spirited post.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
For that matter, if my bf and I signed a marriage license we would be legally married, whether or not we actually called ourselves married or told friends and family that we had done so. (and you are talking to someone who has seriously contemplated not telling my family should I ever actually sign the document) Currently we are joking that we'd sign the document about the time Steve retired so that I'd qualify for his government health benefits for the rest of my life.
AJ
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
quote:The legal rights and priveledges *are* the minimum definition of marriage.
Banna,
I wonder if any of our more religiously minded members would differ with your "minimum definition". When I attended premarital counselling I was brought up short by the Pastor who upbraided me for this type of definition. As far as he was concerned I was missing the point. His opinion was that the legal definition was unimportant--the important issue was God's blessing on the union.
I think that is the reason people are trying to find a way to separate the legal rights from the religious rites as they discuss couples' legal standing in society.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
m_p_h, the "obtuse" comment is my emotional response, my feelings, as it were; I'm sure many anti-SSM folks have emotional responses as well. I just wanted to be up front and honest.
Similarly, there are real people with real fears and real feelings on this side of the debate. So why do we bend to the anti-SSMers as opposed to the pro-SSMers?
It just seems that we're just supposed to keep on understanding pro-traditional values types, to the point of paralysis... IOW, understand them until they get exactly what they want.
-Bok
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Those last few are pats of a wedding, not a marriage.
Really? Some people don't think you are married until you have a wedding, so I think it is very pertinent. I don't mean in a legal sense, but in a spiritual/social/cultural sense. What this amendment is doing is making one possible social/cultural/religious definition of marriage the only legal one.
I had a friend who was "married" three times in a year. Once on paper so that his Mexican fiance could legally leave the US and return after they had a "real" ceremony in Mexico City (if they didn't get legally hitched here, she would have had to stay out of the country for 6 to 12 months). Then they had a third one for all of us who couldn't make the second one. The first one was for the law only.
What the amendment is saying is that only this first marriage was the legal one and the one prohibited to gay citizens. They can already get married in the ways that matter to most people...in church, with religious leaders, with families, with cake, with dancing, with anniversaries and pledges and such. They just can't have the benefit of them in the eyes of the law...a law that should be somewhat blind to things like this, I would think.
fil
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See I don't think the minimum practical definitions are any different. Believe me I understand the spiritual significance that is attached to religious weddings especially when invoking God as a third person present in the marriage to help strengthen it.
However, regardless of the spiritual ramifications I think the minimum working definitions from a practical standpoint are actually the same. That is unless your Pastor would presume to tell someone who got married by Elvis in Vegas that they "aren't really married". Would he go that far?
AJ
Or to stretch the question further, would he tell a gay couple that got married by their spiritual authority (and some denominations do allow their clergy to perform such marriages) that they "weren't married"? Because if the spiritual is more important, and they had a "spiritual" marriage according to their beliefs, then by your pastor's definition they would be married!
[ October 11, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I am absolutely not able to express my feelings for this vile, mean-spirited post."
It's not mean-spirited. These people are clearly ignorant, and do not understand the distinction between legal recognition of marriage and the existence of marriage. Such people are representatives of the lowest common denominator, and I don't see why we need to give their concerns extra weight.
If you're proposing a medicare bill, you don't stop to worry about whether or not there are people out there who think that medicine is a huge fraud being perpetuated by an alien race bent on our destruction; if there ARE such people, you simply dismiss their opinion as being lunatic and unreasonable and move on. I suggest that, in this case, we do the same.
[ October 11, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bokonon, I can understand why you feel that way.
I personally feel almost the exact same way, but in the opposite direction.
I believe that the people I disagree with are in error and are misguided, but I don't believe that you have to be "stupid" to disagree with me.
<-- apparenly, this guy is stupid
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So what you were working your way up to saying, without having the courage to say it, is that YOU are one of those people who believe that the removal of marriage from government and its replacement with "civil unions" would amount to the abolition of marriage?
As a Mormon, you have even less reason to feel this way -- since, after all, you have a whole special category of super-marriage (tm) unique to your religion that has absolutely nothing at all to do with the government. I would think that this would make it even easier for you to understand this concept.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I am absolutely not able to express my feelings for this vile, mean-spirited post.
How it was stated aside, it is true. The fact is, people can be all sorts of mean-spirited and vile if they use language like the words in such amendments. They can heap all sorts of flowery words to say the same things about people who are for same sex marriage without worrying that THEIR mean-spirited and vile expressions will cost some people possible future happiness and security...all for their "real feelings."
Maybe stupid is a strong word. Maybe it isn't.
fil
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, keep in mind that an important part of Mormon beliefs about marriage deals with things being legal. There is a very strong sense of following the laws of the land.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Honestly, though, it didn't occur to me that Porter was talking about himself when he used the phrase "some people." If I'd known that he was describing his own opinion, I would have been slightly -- slightly, mind you -- more diplomatic in my reply.
-------
"There is a very strong sense of following the laws of the land."
Well, great. So you get a civil union before or after your sealing, just like everybody else will do. You won't be breaking the law by having a separate marriage ceremony.
And since Mormons already have a separate marriage ceremony that isn't reflected in law, I believe far less would change for you than you'd think.
[ October 11, 2004, 01:17 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Personally, I'd be just as happy with the total abolition of "civil marriage" completely. I think it would be fairer than what exists now.
Of course the non-religious people, like Tom who do enjoy the civil benefits of marriage and feel that society benefits as a whole from having stable couples, would probably squawk.
But it would be fair.
AJ
[ October 11, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wasn't talking about myself, and I don't agree with everything I said some people think. I was just so offended by the idea that anybody with intelligence has to agree with Tom that I got carried away.
I haven't decided if I agree with those things or not. I don't agree nor disagree with them yet.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
m_p_h, I agree, TomD is being rather uncharitable with the above comments.
The way I see it though, if SSM happens, either by all marriages == civil unions, or same sex partners getting an actual legal marriage certificate, won't stop people with strong traditional and/or religious values, like yourself, m_p_h, from practicing your own fully defined, unique, spiritually important marriage rites, as is deemed necessary by your beliefs. It simply means that some same sex couple can go to city hall and get the same legal protections for their intended exclusively monogamous earthly (and sexual) relationship as you can get for yourself and beverly. You can even, witihn your own faith or cultural groups believe and bar these non-approved-of relationships... You just can't ask the government of a pluralistic nation like the USA to take an exclusionary side, without concrete, and earthly (since that is what a government should limit its concerns to, and which I think the Founding Fathers made clear as to their intent for our nation's government) evidence.
Are there some side effects? Yes, as a fair amount of Hatrackers have explained it before. I realize that the law allowing such a change will be seen by many as tacit (or even explicit) approval of said relationship, in some moral way. I can see how homosexuality could be seen as more acceptable, making it harder to raise their children with the beliefs that one has. I don't know how to make it easier, except maybe readjusting one's beliefs that a government, on domestic issues anyway, has any inherent moral weight.
-Bok
[ October 11, 2004, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I was just so offended by the idea that anybody with intelligence has to agree with Tom that I got carried away."
Nope. It's not that they disagree with me; it's that they're factually and provably wrong. People who think that removing marriage from civil jurisdiction amounts to the destruction of marriage do not understand the meaning of basic english words. Rather than letting their misunderstanding of the language influence public policy, why not suggest that they pick up a dictionary?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, I don't know how much things would change. I just don't know enough and can't guess. Maybe this is a point of nitpicking, but there is a bit of wording about being "legally and lawfully married". If you can't be legally and lawfully married because there is no such thing as legal marriage, that becomes a bit of a problem. It may not be a huge problem--it is hard for me to judge.
I suppose my views seem "unfair" to many, and they are based on my faith (though because of my faith, I believe these things have very real ramifications on our society), I freely admit that. I would prefer to keep marriage something that is legally recognized as such--as now. I also think it should be defined as being only between a man and a woman. But I think many of the more obvious benefits (in other words, the ones I am aware of) of married couples should be extended to same-sex couples who have entered into a legal union. I think it only makes sense for there to be a legal set-up for that and it seems petty to withhold such a thing.
I don't, however, think it is petty to define marriage as between a man and a woman, though. I do believe that in the vast majority of cultures throughout time, marriage has only ever existed between a male and a female--whatever their age or status. There are exceptions, but they are in the minority. The fact remains, in *our* society marriage has always been between male and female and never between male and male or female and female. That is what marriage *is*. And because of my religious views, I don't want to see that change.
I believe that having marriage defined and reserved in this way encourages people to enter into male/female unions. And while some people are incapable of being attracted to the opposite sex, those who are "swing voters" so-to-speak, are effected by society's constructs. I desire to live in a society that encourages the male/female model, rewarding such behavior (rather than one that punishes the other--since so many people cannot be attracted to the opposite sex.)
Because I am a parent, I view the world through that lens quite often. So the example that comes to mind is rewarding and punishing my children. Can I reward one child for good behavior without the other seeing not being rewarded as being a punishment? They may think of it that way, but I have not punished them. I have failed to reward them. There is a difference whether they see it or not.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"If you can't be legally and lawfully married because there is no such thing as legal marriage, that becomes a bit of a problem."
There are a handful of countries that already require "civil unions" instead of "marriage." Does anyone know how the Mormons in those countries feel about their sealings?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Bokonon, you and many others have made the point that people shouldn't let their faith dictate the way that they vote. I don't see how that is possible. The moral code of a religious person is quite often defined by that religion. Many of them are a members of that religion because they agree with it's moral code and the reasons for it. (There are exceptions too.) These people believe that this moral code is correct and has a very real effect on reality and they have a moral obligation to uphold it.
Of course everyone has their own moral code, religious or not. And these codes differ from person to person. Let's set up a hypothetical.
Imagine that you live in some future version of our society where there is no taboo whatsoever against adult-child sexual relations. You, however, strongly believe that such relations are harmful and wrong. The evidence of such does not show up in scientific studies, but you believe in your heart of hearts that it is there. Let's just change this situation slightly to say that you also belong to a religion that believes this. Your moral code happens to be in alignment with your faith on this matter. You decide to vote, protest, whatever, against adult-child sex being legal.
Are you voting according to your faith? Shame on you! You shouldn't be doing that! Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: There are a handful of countries that already require "civil unions" instead of "marriage." Does anyone know how the Mormons in those countries feel about their sealings?
That is an interesting question, and a pertinent one. I don't know the answer. But my thoughts on the matter are, if that is the case, life goes on. Mormons still continue practicing as they would normally (or not, I don't know). If their beliefs are restricted in some way, they deal with it as best they can. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be better in their eyes if marriage was a legal construct in their country.
Mormons are also told to have a year's supply of food stored. There are many countries that prohibit this by law. The Mormons in those countries are told to obey the law and do what they are able to legally do. But of course, food storage and eternal marriage are *way* different in importance. Would these Mormons prefer to have food storage be legal in their country? I'm sure they would. I know I would. But we believe in following the law of the land. We take that very seriously. IMO, the conflict would have to be a strong one in order for the Latter-day Saints to be commanded by their prophets to go against it (otherwise they are left to decide for themselves). It is a "lesser of two evils" issue.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
That's an awful hypothetical Bev.
I think that the Jewish faith actually shows a great example. Do they force everyone else to eat kosher? No. They even have allowances that Non-Jews don't have to obey the same laws. But do they still take time out of their lives to make sure they are following their dietary laws, yes. Are they following the dictates of their conscience and G-d? Yes.
They would only ever vote against something that made their kosher way of eating illegal.
AJ
[ October 11, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Ok I like the food storage analogy much better. Though where would it ever be illegal to keep a year's supply of food on hand?
AJ
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
quote:Bokonon, you and many others have made the point that people shouldn't let their faith dictate the way that they vote.
I didn't see any of these posts so I'm not sure of the context. However, I would also disagree, but maybe for a different reason.
I think that no one can escape the fact that their religion or even lack thereof must affect the way that they govern their lives and thus the way that they would like their society to treat them in their lives. Therefore they will vote based on their beliefs and those beliefs will be molded by their religion.
However, the United States is built on a constitution that requires the minority, after such a vote, be afforded basic rights. That is, regardless of what the majority decides, certain freedoms may not be infringed upon.
So, by all means vote your conscience. That is not only your right, but it is required for our democracy to function. However, you must be aware that there are certain rights that you cannot deny other citizens, no matter how strongly you hold the view that because of their station they don't deserve those rights.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sadly, I don't think the food storage analogy is an improvement, as we're still talking about a behavior that is banned as opposed to a behavior which is simply not recognized. In fact, the American approach to food storage -- that it's not banned, but that the government doesn't force you to do it -- is probably closer to the "civil union" proposal in tone.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Awful as in awful to consider or awful as in poorly thought-out?
But the Jews also believe very strongly that Gentiles aren't supposed to follow Jewish law. That is not the way others look at things.
For instance, as a Latter-day Saint, I look at the universe being comprised of natural eternal laws with set consequences. Those consequences may not be turned aside--they must come to pass. Not even God would stand in the way of that. But he is merciful to people according to how much they understand what they are doing. Still, I believe that all offenses are covered by Christ's atonement and that without that there can be no balance for offense to eternal law.
It is a different way of looking at things than the Jewish model you gave, and the hypothetical I gave is more pertinent to it.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Though where would it ever be illegal to keep a year's supply of food on hand?
I don't know which countries. I only know that when the church speaks or sends out articles on the subject, it makes reference to countries in which it is illegal and what to do in those circumstances.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I wouldn't say NOT to vote your faith, but temper it with the realization that the government, at most, concerns itself only with tangible earthly things.
As for your hypothetical, I think everyone would be within their right to protest it, short of legislating (voting) it. I do think that if they can't provide reason why it should be within the earthly government's jurisdiction to regulate these relationships (in such a way as to show tangible, earthly harm across the whole of the citizenry), then they shouldn't try to legislate those beliefs. Convince people, set up large-scale protests to change people's minds (or more to the point, be convinced of the rightness of your own beliefs), that is all fine and good. That way, you could still end up with a de facto society of none (or few) of these types of relationships, even if the law is on the books (much like many current laws that are no longer enforced).
But to utilize an earthly, temporal, man-made system to legislate supernatural, faith-based legislation, seems a misapplication of tools.
Now, if you CAN prove harm in these relationships, in this life (which is the only one this government can and ought to have any regulation over) I think that voting in that way is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
All in my opinion, of course.
-Bok
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sorry bev, awful in that it didn't make your point at all, and you deliberately used a emotionally loaded subject in your argument that was totally irrelevant in the context you gave it. It was as if you were thinking that the emotional loading would help, when it is totally irrelevant in any example. If there was no documented harm of adult-child sex being bad for society, you could vote against it all you wanted, but it wouldn't matter, nor should it.
The priveledge has already been granted. There IS NO DOCUMENTED HARM, therefore it would be far far harder to take away than the other way around.
Now in reality you think there IS documented harm to adult-child sex, and I would agree. But I don't agree that there is documented harm in calling marriage a "civil union" for the purpose of the Legal Definition only.
AJ
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Though where would it ever be illegal to keep a year's supply of food on hand? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know which countries. I only know that when the church speaks or sends out articles on the subject, it makes reference to countries in which it is illegal and what to do in those circumstances.
In times of shortage in many countries (including this one, if I'm not mistaken) there are statutes against hoarding. I'm sure which items for which hoarding is illegal, and what actually constitutes hoarding varies somewhat from time to time and place to place.
[ October 11, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
ok that makes sense about anti-hoarding laws... But it would seem that if you could get your supplies before the shortages happened then it wouldn't necessarily be hoarding?
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Bok, it is my belief that there are earthly, tangible consequences that do not show up in scientific studies. My belief, therefore, is based on my faith rather than scientific evidence. But it seems to me that society is a far too complex critter to be defined and understood scientifically. Only the most overt of trends can be noticed and measured. That is my opinion.
Let me just play devil's advocate for a bit. Whatever those people are called who believe adult-child sex should be fine (I can't remember ATM) their argument seems to be that the only harm in it is the same sort of harm that happens in any abusive relationship--and abuse is wrong, but not the sex itself. They believe that if there were no associated taboo or guilt, there would be no negative effects--that we are denying children a beautiful and rewarding experience. You know, for all we know, they may be "right". Perhaps in such a society no harm would be found in any scientific study.
Similar to the studies that in Europe where there isn't such a taboo on extra-marital sex there is less teen pregnancy and STDs and whatnot. For all appearances, it seems that if we didn't have the Puritan taboos and the guilt and we all just made sure to have safe, mature sex whether marital or extra-marital, our society would be better off. It is our taboos and guilt that are the problem, right?
But you know what? I believe there would be harm in both cases. Damn the scientific studies--that is what I believe. (I believe) there are some things that are earthly, real, and tangible that just don't show up there.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Banna, gay marriage *is* an emotionally loaded subject for plenty of people. Though it really isn't for me. I am fairly ambivalent on the subject. If gay marriage became legal, I don't think it would bother me personally all that much. Though legalizing adult-child sex would--as I think gay marriage bothers many.
But I believe what I said in the above post. I believe that a lot of the obvious "harm" that comes from adult-child sex comes from abuse, taboo, and guilt. Remove those things, and I don't think the harm would show up in scientific studies. But, as I made abundantly clear, I do *not* believe that equals an actual lack of harm.
[ October 11, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
So, you believe that there are "tangible" benefits that can't be measured?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Maybe you should replace "tangible" with "real".
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Fair enough, but in this case, it doesn't matter what we say, dialogue has essentially ended with you, correct? I don't mean to say that you should stop exhorting people to believe that there are tangible consequences, but rather, we can no longer call it a discussion, or conversation. You are not able to provide evidence of harm in a manner that is acceptable to me, and I can't convince you that there isn't harm being done, because you know there is.
So I guess all I can say is, good luck, and we'll see what happens
-Bok
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:But you know what? I believe there would be harm in both cases. Damn the scientific studies--that is what I believe. (I believe) there are some things that are earthly, real, and tangible that just don't show up there.
I think a lot of people feel this way but are not honest enough to admit that they are basing their opinions purely on personal faith. At least you have the courage to admit it. I respect your courage (if not your view).
I'm curious though. Would you apply the "science be damned" rule to other things like national defense, environmental protection, FDA policy, etc?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*trying to figure out where the lack of a child being able to give "informed consent" comes in to your scenario, bev.
That is I think what really separates someone who is emotionally capable of having sex from someone who isn't. I think there are a lot of people over 18 that can't handle that emotional maturity, but are legally allowed to do it anyway, (and a lot of people under 18 that are capable of handling it, but the line had to be drawn arbitrarily somewhere)
Oh and I really wish you hadn't brought the adult-child sex thing up at all, because I believe it has a Godwin's Law like effect on an entire conversation.
AJ
[ October 11, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Let me just give an example: (Not for the squicky at heart)
In the Philippines, it is very common for small children to go without clothes. It is also very common for adults to "play" with little boy's penis' just as the might play with a child's nose, ear, bellybutton, etc. This (as far as I can tell) is not considered sexual behavior *at all*.
Well, *I* think it is sexual behavior--at least after a fashion. I wouldn't do it to my children or anyone else's nor would I permit such behavior towards my children! I would consider it molestation. I was raised in a society where you do not touch the private parts of children in that way.
So, is it really wrong? Do these Philippino boys grow up warped? I really don't know. Not as far as *I* could tell. It is just a normal part of their society (as is 7 year old children and older sucking on their mother's teats for comfort.)
Just a thought.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
As Porter suggested, perhaps "tangible" is not the best word to describe it.
Bok, I didn't mean to end the discussion. I just want to help others understand how I look at things. I am also interested in understanding how others see things. It makes it less likely that you will convince me, but IMO these discussions are far more for understanding than for convincing. I don't have any hope of convincing you either. I just want you to *understand*. I already felt this way before we started talking about it, I have simply expressed the way I look at it.
Vwiggin, I do not think "science be damned" about everything. Just because I think science cannot tell us everything about something as complex as society does not mean that science is not a very useful tool in harder sciences.
Also, any evidence found by science is valid evidence. And it does influence my religious views, despite what others may think. For instance, the scientific evidence in favor of evolution effects my perception of the Creation story.
Banna, you and I believe a child cannot give "informed consent". Others may not see a problem with that. After all, do I need informed consent to send my daughter to her room for making a mess? It all depends on the POV of individuals and society. I think my above example gives an interesting perspective on this.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I think such characteristics would in fact be accurately described as "intangible." Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Oh and I really wish you hadn't brought the adult-child sex thing up at all, because I believe it has a Godwin's Law like effect on an entire conversation.
I quite agree. Apples and oranges. It tires me to no end that the one is brought up as an analogy of the other or as some inane slippery-slope kind of arguement.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
But Karl, aren't you a homosexual because you were sexually abused as a child? OSC said so, so it must be true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: dialogue has essentially ended with you, correct? I don't mean to say that you should stop exhorting people to believe that there are tangible consequences, but rather, we can no longer call it a discussion, or conversation. You are not able to provide evidence of harm in a manner that is acceptable to me, and I can't convince you that there isn't harm being done, because you know there is.
So I guess all I can say is, good luck, and we'll see what happens [Smile]
Yes and no. If you notice, I have not exhorted anybody to believe anything. You and I start with very different assumptions about what is and what should be, and it is unlikely in the extreme that we could come to a concensus on this topic.
But we can still have a meaningful dialog on this topic.
In my recent posts on this thread, I have not been trying to discuss the topic of gay marriage directly, but I have been trying to discuss people's feelings toward it.
The only time that dialog has stopped is when you decide that your opponents are all sub-human (or ignorant, or bigoted, or stupid, etc.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Oh and I really wish you hadn't brought the adult-child sex thing up at all, because I believe it has a Godwin's Law like effect on an entire conversation.
I don't think that's fair. Goodwin's Law works because people generally don't bring up Hitler/Nazis until they already have stopped listening to others. That is not the case with beverly.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Did I say beverly had stopped listening? NO. I am enjoying the conversation with her.
Do I believe that bringing up adult-child sex has a Godwin's Law type effect on ANY conversation that started on a different topic.
YES.
AJ
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
*sigh* I was not trying to draw any paralells between homosexuality and child-adult sex. Now *I* wish I hadn't used that example because people automatically jump to the conclusion that that is what I was doing instead of actually listening to what I was saying.
I was responding to someone saying that I shouldn't try to legislate based on faith and come up with an example where a person might do so--a case where the majority of people believe there is nothing morally wrong with something you think is morally wrong. I could have used examples involving violence also, assuming there is a group of people out there who argue that violence is justifiable and has arguments for it that I can't refute.
There *is* already a group of people that argue that child-adult sex is acceptable, and some of their arguments make sense (even if I disagree with them.) Were they to truly test their theories, they might even have science on their side. That would not convince me that they are right. I couldn't think of another example that fit those requirements.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
bev, that is why I haven't responded to your comment about the Phillipines although I would like to, I think it contributes further to further derailment of the discussion away from your original point.
AJ
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote:Let me just play devil's advocate for a bit. Whatever those people are called who believe adult-child sex should be fine (I can't remember ATM) their argument seems to be that the only harm in it is the same sort of harm that happens in any abusive relationship--and abuse is wrong, but not the sex itself. They believe that if there were no associated taboo or guilt, there would be no negative effects--that we are denying children a beautiful and rewarding experience. You know, for all we know, they may be "right". Perhaps in such a society no harm would be found in any scientific study.
I don't think this qualifies for Goodwin's Law, but the last sentence is close to violating Squicky's law.
There are plenty of reasons why having sex with minors is wrong beyond the "taboo" argument. Children cannot give meaningful consent, children are not emotionally or physically ready for sex, children cannot handle the consequences of sex, etc.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
AJ, feel free to drop me a line, IM or email is fine. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Children cannot give meaningful consent, children are not emotionally or physically ready for sex, children cannot handle the consequences of sex, etc.
My point is, this is a moral belief. It just so happens that the majority of people agree with you. I can imagine a society in which this was not a commonly held belief. *shudder* It is not a society I would wish to live in, though.
Have there been societies that have been casual about their attitudes towards murder? It seems to be the case. I wouldn't enjoy living in those societies either. It is tough when the morality of an entire society goes against your own.
Even if the majority of society disagrees with my personal code of morality, I must still vote my conscience. If the courts declare that it is a basic human right, then I don't get to vote.
I just get bugged when people tell me not to inflict my religious beliefs on them. I am trying to be fair about this. I am not trying to "punish" homosexuals. I have no interest in punishing homosexual unions. But I do believe in "rewarding" heterosexual unions--because of my personal moral code and the influence I believe it will have on society--measurable or not.
[ October 11, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Okay, perhaps I ought to amend my statement. I don't mean that either of should stop talking about it, but I think, at least between me and you, we do understand why the other believes in the way they do, at least up to the point prior to where I I or you would agree with the other. I understand that religious beliefs which you hold dear inform much of your opinion on this issue. I am not one to attempt any usurpation of those beliefs, so any further discussion doesn't do anything.
I guess that's the beauty of it
Honestly though, if we both understand that we aren't to be swayed, and we both ALSO understand that our reasons for conflicting beliefs aren't to be reconciled within the scope of this discussion, I don't know how much further you and I can have dialogue. We can talk to others, but really, what can more dialogue between the two of us, at this juncture, add to the discussion, unless it is actually trying to attempt to change my mind.
I hope you realize that I didn't mean to be negatively judgmental when I said dialogue is closed; merely I was pointing out what seemed to be a simple fact, and that any more dialogue between us would be chasing our own tails (and actually trying to change one's beliefs, even if not intentional).
-Bok
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It's OK, Bokonon. This thread was a question posed to people of my approximate mindset. (My husband and I disagree slightly on this issue.) You and I can agree to disagree, and I am fine with that. It just gets my hackles up when people seem to think that my POV is less valid than theirs because it is associated with religious tenets.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
quote: Vwiggin: Children cannot give meaningful consent, children are not emotionally or physically ready for sex, children cannot handle the consequences of sex, etc.
Beverly: My point is, this is a moral belief. It just so happens that the majority of people agree with you. I can imagine a society in which this was not a commonly held belief. *shudder* It is not a society I would wish to live in, though.
But these are not just moral beliefs. A lot of the things I listed can be measured or proven by sociological studies.
Studies can show that people over the age of 18 make better parents than people under the age of 18. Studies can show that when surveyed, children have very little understanding of what "consent" actually means as compared to adults. Studies can show that children are less likely to demand the use of contraceptives because they have less power in their sexual relationships.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Bok -- yeah, I agree with what you said. We understand each other now. But it is only because of useful dialog that we have been able to reach that point.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
And I can prove that a society that is lax about murder has problems too. That doesn't change the fact that it is a moral issue and different societies at different times have had different takes on it.
I do see your point that there is concrete evidence for arguments against child-adult sex and there is not similar evidence against gay marriage's effect on our country. I agree with you. They are different issues. I do think that there are aspects to the child-adult sex issue that go around protestations dealing with STDs and pregnancy--activities that cause neither but would still be illegal in our society. Again, the consent thing is a matter of perspective and morality--more difficult to back up with science.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Have there been societies that have been casual about their attitudes towards murder? It seems to be the case.
quote:It just gets my hackles up when people seem to think that my POV is less valid than theirs because it is associated with religious tenets.
I think it's fairly well-understood that all societies have rules and regulations against certain actions (e.g., murder, rape, and theft) within the society; otherwise, the cohesiveness of the society could not be maintained. Where there is demonstrable harm to individuals within the society, such actions need to be highly constrained if not outright disallowed. (For example, one could say that capital punishment is a highly constrained form of murder.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "valid," though, and I might or might not agree that a given point of view is just as "valid" as any other. Certainly we distinguish between more or less reasonable and justifiable points of view -- even if we believe everyone has a "right" to his or her point of view, we may not think it is interpersonally justifiable.
I have a definite level of discomfort about legislating restrictions on other adults' actions when the reasons why cannot be demonstrated to them. This is even moreso when such harms are claimed to be undemonstrable as a matter of their kind, even moreso than just being harms which merely haven't been demonstrated yet. In such a case, I would say that a given point of view wasn't as "valid" (reasonable, justifiable, worthy of interpersonal legislative force) as one in which such harms could be demonstrated.
I would, however, defend the right of a person with that point of view to hold that position and to argue for it. I would just disagree with that person as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The phrase the caught my attention above, however, was "This legal structure exists because it is helps people form such unions". This implies somewhat (but I don't believe it was your intention) that the law was written when the institution of marriage may have been seen as weak or eroding, with the specific intent to strengthen that institution.
rubble, you’re right, I didn’t mean to assert that at the time these institutions came into being, there was a conscious thought process that “this will encourage people to get married.” Certainly marriage existed long before the Anglo-American common law institutions attached to marriage did.
Rather, I think that as common law principles coalesced, they made exceptions or special rules that took marriages into account, and that at least part of the reason they did this was to make sure marriage was protected from some of the implications of the new laws.
Now, of course, it’s possible to look at specific statutory enactments and say “this exists to help out married couples.” The tax code, statutory codification of common law protections such as marital privilege, and others exist.
But it’s certainly a feedback loop, not a straight cause-effect relationship. So the sentence you point to definitely overreaches, and I hope you’ll let me fall back on the context to rescue myself gracefully. I still stand by the basic policy justifications for marriage being what ought to be protected in the legal codification.
quote:Dagonee, you've made you views clear of how you think things ought to be, but do you think there is any chance of abolishing marriage as a legal institution in America, and replacing it with civil unions?
To save time, I'm going to assume that the answer is no. If I'm wrong, feel free to give me 40 lashes with a wet noodle.
If it's never going to happen, why do you even bother to keep brining it up?
MPH, I need to be clear. I’m not in favor of “abolishing marriage.” Rather, I’m in favor of renaming one particular aspect of it, the legal codification of the civil implications of marriage, in order to acknowledge the current, existing reality that the legal codification does not reflect a consensus view of the extra-legal aspects of the institution of marriage.
The legal entity called marriage (of which there are actually 50 or so in this country) would exist exactly the same, except that it would be called “civil union.”
quote: I believe that some European countries already separate legal and religious marriage. People who want both get legally married at the registrar’s office and then go to church for the ceremony. I seem to recall Anna writing about that in her wedding thread. So it’s certainly not outside the realm of possibility.
I remember hearing about this. This is what I had in mind.
quote:Speaking as someone who officiates at weddings, I’ve always found it a little weird that I’m acting as a representative both of the state and of the church in that function. It’s the only time when clergy function as a representative of the state, and there’s just a little cognitive dissonance in it for me. The “separation of church and state” supporter in me is a tad bit squicked by it.
Very good, Dana. This is a consideration as well. I know the Catholic church requires couples receiving the Sacrament of Marriage must comply with the civil norms for the jurisdiction in which they are getting married. Eve and I went to the courthouse and we got the license. The priest then signed the license and turned it in. It would be a very small step to simply turn in the license when we got it, and bring a certified copy to the priest to chow compliance with civil authority.
quote: Banna...your math is missing some bits in the equation. Marriage = Rights + Privileges+ Responsibility + Endorsement by (insert religious Icon Here) + Ceremony + Showers + Cake + (ad nauseum).
Civil Union = Rights and priviledges.
quote: fil I was looking at it from the legal standpoint only. The rights and priveledges are the legal definition. I (as a heterosexual) could go to the courthouse with my bf, and fill out a marriage license and have a judge or justice of the peace sign it, and we would be just as married as if all of the ad nauseum stuff had been tossed in. The legal rights and priveledges *are* the minimum definition of marriage. All of the cultural/religious stuff could (and do) happen with or without the signing of that peice of paper.
fil and AJ, I think you both agree. My interpretation of AJ’s original equation was equating the present and the hypothetical future we’re proposing, and showing why “abolishing” is not the right word. I’m trying to be very precise with terms and still not getting it 100% right all the time.
quote: Yes, but these are stupid people with stupid feelings and stupid fears. It seems counterproductive to hold the whole country hostage to their stupidity, doesn't it?
In a democracy, you have to account for them, especially since the majority of states are now constitutionally prevented from implementing gay marriage through judicial activism, and I stand by my prediction that this court will not interpret the 14th amendment as establishing a federal right to gay marriage.
So since this battle has to be one by touching the hearts and minds of people who disagree with you, calling them stupid may not be the most productive way to go.
quote: I wonder if any of our more religiously minded members would differ with your "minimum definition". When I attended premarital counselling I was brought up short by the Pastor who upbraided me for this type of definition.
Again, I think AJ meant the minimal definition for “legal marriage,” which is all this proposed amendment speaks to. I agree with you – marriage to me is something holy and far beyond a collection of rights, duties, and privileges. It’s a Sacrament given by Eve and I to each other, with rights and duties far, far beyond those legally recognized by the state. What I consider marriage has NEVER been recognized by a state in this country. The differences are so great between the legal institution that exists now and my conception of it that allowing gay couples access to the former in no way expands the difference between it and the latter.
quote: If you're proposing a medicare bill, you don't stop to worry about whether or not there are people out there who think that medicine is a huge fraud being perpetuated by an alien race bent on our destruction; if there ARE such people, you simply dismiss their opinion as being lunatic and unreasonable and move on. I suggest that, in this case, we do the same.
Tom, I think you’re leaping to a conclusion. There are some people in this country not ready to concede what I have conceded – that the legal aspects are merely rights, duties, and responsibilities. They think the societal “blessing” of heterosexual couples raising children is a valid goal of the legal system. There are other examples in the law with similar philosophical views.
For example, hate crime legislation exists not for deterrence’s sake, but to send a special message to both the intended victims of hate crimes and to the potential criminals that the days of getting away with such crimes are over (as best we can accomplish). From a classic 4-point purpose of punishment analysis, the laws are unnecessary. The two leading cases in the 90s, Mathew Shepard and the Texas dragging case (I can’t remember the name) both resulted in life without parole or death for the perpetrators. But, the proponents of hate crime laws speak to the message, not in individual convictions, but in the mere passing of the law.
I happen to oppose the application of this principle in both marriage and hate crime. But I don’t have the hubris to cause the many scholars who disagree with me “stupid.”
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sara, thoughtful post. I would say that it is less valid if the person has not given much thought to it--just going along with what someone has told them to do. If they have done much honest soul-searching and still come to that conclusion, I think it is as valid as any other POV. So while some people seem apt to discount views which are heavily influneced by their faith, I would not. I would discount views that come from any person who has not given careful thought to the idea and is just reacting emotionally. I think there are such people on both sides of any issue--regardless of faith or non-faith.
I can understand you being uncomfortable with any law that restricts the actions of an adult. I am not quite sure how this applies to this thread, though. If we were talking about outlawing homosexual sex, I would be against such a legislation, especially considering that I believe that sexual orientation is often (but not always) an innate part of a person's nature and does not cause enough demonstratable harm to justify legislation.
But we are discussing whether or not marriage is something that happens between a male and female or something that happens between any two consenting adults and what sorts of priviledges (rather than rights) those unions should receive. I am not sure I believe that heterosexuals have any "rights" that homosexuals do not. There does seem to be a disparagy in the priviledge department though, and I think something ought to be done about that.
I think there is demonstratable, tangible reason for society to foster a special status for the male/female union. Even if our world is overpopulated, we still rely on the next generation because we are mortal. And the vast majority of this rising generation is raised up in male/female unions.
Consequently, I think any union involving children deserves special status, homo or hetero. That is where the highest priority lies for society.
[ October 11, 2004, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
quote:I think any situation involving children deserves special status, homo or hetero. That is where the highest priority lies for society.
In a perfect world maybe. *shrugs sadly*
[ October 11, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Tammy ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Sara, thoughtful post. I would say that it is less valid if the person has not given much thought to it--just going along with what someone has told them to do. If they have done much honest soul-searching and still come to that conclusion, I think it is as valid as any other POV.
What do you mean by "valid"? What words would be synonyms for "valid" as you are using it? (Just trying to understand, not just to put you on the spot. Promise.)
quote:I can understand you being uncomfortable with any law that restricts the actions of an adult. I am not quite sure how this applies to this thread, though.
I was trying to puzzle through why I would consider one point of view more "valid" than another, and I was using the Merriam Webster online definition(s). There might well be other colloquial or individual-specific meanings to the word, I'm sure. It seems to be a word which is sometimes used for emphasis, but not always in ways that are dictionary-specific.
This was a real issue for me as a teacher of a philosophy class, because there is a specific meaning of "valid" in that context which kept getting muddled with more colloquial usage. In trying to work through this with my students, I came to realize how varied the usage in regular conversation really is.
But ths may be a tangent to the conversation for you. If so, it can be ignored with impunity.
quote:Consequently, I think any union involving children deserves special status, homo or hetero. That is where the highest priority lies for society.
I'd add that maintaining a society worth bequeathing to our children is as appropriate as having them, but I realize that there is likely a difference between the religious and the non-religious perspectives here. We'd definitely agree that children are important, I think.
[ October 11, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[moved below, as it slipped in before your reply]
[ October 11, 2004, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I didn't think a great deal about the use of the word "valid", but looking at the definitions you provided, I was probably using it most like the second definition. That definition refers to something that is logical, well-grounded, etc. Obviously it is legal to vote without thinking, so the first definition doesn't apply.
quote: I'd add that maintaining a society worth bequeathing to our children is as appropriate as having them, but I realize that there is likely a difference between the religious and the non-religious here.
I agree. That is the goal I am shooting for--helping society be the sort of place I think is worth inheriting. Hopefully that is what we are all trying to do. It is not surprising that different people would have different ideas on how best to go about this.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I believe that if we made all our decisions based only on demonstratable evidence, we would not be able to function. I also believe that that our "gut feelings" and "intuition" should be taken into account--though not given free reign.
It is in these intangibles that we humans disagree with each other so much. If only we all were more open and honest about what the intangibles were, we would understand each other better. But since intangibles are more open for "attack" than tangibles, we keep them hidden and only march out the demonstratable things for public view--being careful to march out the ones that best support our intangibles. I think we should respect each others "intangibles" more--even as we gently encourage each other to examine them.
(Hopes this isn't sounding vaguely naughty.)
Edit: Oh, and I hope you feel better soon!
[ October 11, 2004, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
[moved down from above]
Hmmm. I'm pretty sure that the M-W definition 2b (as in "valid argument" or "valid inference") is a technical definition with respect to the field of logic. "Valid" in the sense of "logically correct" is a very specific meaning. It means that the premises of the argument imply the conclusion. It doesn't, however, mean that the conclusion is correct or even reasonable -- in the sense of formal logic, "valid" and "sound" are technically distinct. I think that the meaning you are looking for is probably "sound"?
My sense is that in advocating legislation between persons who may not have the same intangible beliefs, there might be a different appropriate standard for "well-grounded or justifiable." What is justifiable to an individual in his or her own mind may not carry over to another individual if it cannot be demonstrated in some way. Does that make sense?
Of course, this presumes we are talking about legislating the actions of adults. Very young children are not developmentally capable of evaluating claims about harms -- they can barely understand "no." Hopefully, part of raising them is teaching them how to evalate such claims on their own, when you are not there.
(I'm getting ready to go back to sleep, as this head cold has me conked out. )
[ October 11, 2004, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Yeah, it is primarily the intangibles which people fundamentally disagree on, I think. It's difficult to discuss them, but it's probably one of the most important things we do -- especially when we are engaged in making rules for others. I don't worry so much about individual beliefs and faith in things which cannot be perceived except when that is the motivation for legislating restrictions of other adults.
I think of intangibles as similar to anecdotes in that way. They aren't evidence in and of themselves, but they point us to the areas to investigate for evidence. I guess that if we all agreed on the intangibles, I would have less concern about grounding legislation in them -- but if we disagree, and the harms can't be demonstrated, the "justifiability" of the point of view [with regards to deciding for others in particular, that is] is hard for me to understand, at least as being equivalent.
Thanks for the good thoughts. *achoo! Head cold. It will pass, although not without much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
[ October 11, 2004, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:I believe that if we made all our decisions based only on demonstratable evidence, we would not be able to function. I also believe that that our "gut feelings" and "intuition" should be taken into account--though not given free reign.
I'd agree as well that if we waited for the final evidence on every matter, we'd be paralyzed. But it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between reasons for which it is possible to demonstrate material evidence, and those for which it is impossible to demonstrate evidence for them (i.e., "intangibles" whose effect in the material world cannot be measured).
There are ways of dealing with the former objectively in interpersonal discussions, but not the latter. That's why I have a problem with using such reasons as the (necessary) premises for interpersonal legislation.
But I don't see that as a problem when it is a matter of one individual, because there is no likelihood of discord that is impossible to settle. One's reasons, even if intangible, aren't in dispute.
[ October 11, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: My sense is that in advocating legislation between persons who may not have the same intangible beliefs, there might be a different appropriate standard for "well-grounded or justifiable." What is justifiable to an individual in his or her own mind may not carry over to another individual if it cannot be demonstrated in some way. Does that make sense?
I can disagree with someone even as I think their arguments are "well-grounded or justifiable". I can see that they have thought through it. But because of subtle differences in perspective, I look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion. In my mind, both of our conclusions are equally valid. It is when someone isn't thinking about it that I think it slides in it's validity. If someone believes very strongly in their faith, they will take it into account as evidence. Another person will not use that evidence.
You seem to say that if I take into account such evidence--evidence that you do not consider sound but I believe is sound, that you would find my POV to be less "well-grounded and justifiable". I don't look at it that way. If someone uses evidence that I would not use, for instance, from a religion that teaches something different than mine, I would consider their conclusion valid. If they use that evidence and discount all other evidence, I might argue that they are not thinking and consider their conclusions less valid.
An example: A Jewish person would never consider trying to get me to not eat pork. But they believe that law applies to Jews only, not Gentiles. On the other hand, if Hindu believes (forgive me if I am misrepresenting Hindu beliefs--it is due to my ignorance) that I am eating their dead grandfather as I have a Big Mac, I can totally understand them trying to pass legislation against eating cows. They can't prove that that cow is their dead grandfather, but they honestly believe harm is being done. Unfortunately for that person, they would be far in the minority in this country, and such a law would never pass. But in a country where that is the majority religion, I would not at all be surprised if slaughtering a cow for food was against the law. I may not have the same religious views, but I respect what that law means to them. I think their POV is as valid as mine.
If someone's law was in direct conflict with my personal code of morals, then there would be a problem. I would have to rebel against it in some way.
For instance, if I lived in a society where the local Lord reserved the right to have sex with me on my wedding night to my husband. Would I submit to that? I would do everything in my power to fight against such a law. I believe it is grossly immoral.
I am thinking as I go here....
So, to conclude, I guess I would have a hard time viewing the above "gross" law as valid because it so goes against my code of morals.
I wonder, is that how people think of my POV? They have a hard time seeing it as valid because it so goes against their own code of morals?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
What's the difference between the Hindu's legislation and the Lord's legislation (as outlined above) with regard to validity in the "well-grounded, justifiable" sense to you?
If they both had reasons which were carefully thought-out (even if matters of faith), why would one be valid and not the other?
Isn't that how you've defined "valid"?
(again, just trying to understand)
[ October 11, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bev, here's some info on Hindus and beef. I can't vouch for the total accuracy, but Belief net is pretty good but not perfect on things I do know about.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Here is the main difference I can think of. The motivation for the laws are completely different. The Hindu is seeking to protect the lives of beloved family and friends. The Hindu believes spirits once residing in humans may now be residing in your hamburger meat.
The Lord is trying to establish supremacy of power through demoralization (using "morale" not "moral") of the people. He is trying to subject them to something unpleasant for his own pleasure and maintanence.
The second reason is morally reprehensible, IMO, and therefore quite different. Even if he thought it through, it is evil. It comes from the mind of a person who does not heed his own conscience.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Dag, well, I feel like an idiot now.
So, instead of a Hindu, I'll just have to make up a hypothetical religion for the sake of the example.
Makes me totally reconsider the phrase "Holy Cow!"
[ October 11, 2004, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote: The motivation for the laws are completely different.
So, what is it exactly about the intangibles of each that is different in an important way? What criteria do you use to judge between the motivations?
I think you might be saying that "selfishness" and "respectfulness" are among the important qualities, but I can't tell if you think these are just important from your perspective or whether they are important qualities in a more general way.
[That is, do you think such criteria are intrinsically important or just a matter of personal taste?]
[ October 11, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nah, you'd only be an idiot if you didn't alter your view based on new information, a thought that honestly never crossed my mind.
Dagonee
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:But we can still have a meaningful dialog on this topic.
Out of curiosity, if the two involved parties already know both that their opposites hold differing assumptions and what those assumptions are, and if consensus is vanishingly unlikely why is the resulting dialogue meaningful?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think one person is listening to their conscience (preserving human life through preserving cows) and the other is hurting people for their own benifit. I cannot understand how the second person is listening to their conscience. I think an important part of coming to a valid moral conclusion (if that is what the goal is here--and I believe it is). I do not consider the second one a valid moral conclusion. It is just a valid conclusion for maintaining oppression--something that goes against my morals.
Though an interesting hypothetical comes to mind: an example from OSC's book "Hart's Hope". In this book a man publicly rapes a princess "for the greater good". Interesting story. I hated the book, though--because it squicked me out too much. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are three primary benefits:
1. Each side will understand the other side's arguments better, and can adjust their own beliefs (or the presentation of those beliefs) accordingly.
2. Each side will understand their own position, and how it is perceived by the other side, better.
3. People who have not made up their minds are better educated about both views.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Out of curiosity, if the two involved parties already know both that their opposites hold differing assumptions and what those assumptions are, and if consensus is vanishingly unlikely why is the resulting dialogue meaningful?
For me it is all about reaching understanding. I want to understand where you are coming from and I want you to understand where I am coming from. By doing so we educate ourselves and learn how to compromise and live in harmony.
I do think that points can be made that can influence the other's thinking, but it is unlikely to totally convert them. But how can we influence someone effectively until we understand where they are coming from? If I can influence someone to not think of me (and others of like-mind) as an irrational bigot, I will walk away satisfied that we had a meaningful conversation.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Two questions: ------------------------------
So, "acting from one's conscience" is what makes for a "valid moral conclusion" in your view?
And is this an objective matter, or (in your view) is it a matter of your own personal taste?
------------------------------
(It sounds so challenging to ask, but I just mean to understand. I won't push you on it once I have puzzled through your meaning, I promise. )
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
I am thinking about perhaps a Lord who sincerely believed it is his religious duty to do as outlined above. In that case, you might disagree with him, but I think you would still believe him to be reaching a valid moral conclusion.
But perhaps you wouldn't. In that case, though, I can't tell what you would be meaning by "valid." (Does that make sense?)
The only way I could work through competing intangible religious claims in my mind was to keep the justification for interpersonal restrictions to demonstrable (evaluatable) reasons, although I might have intangible reasons for my own actions.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:If someone's law was in direct conflict with my personal code of morals, then there would be a problem. I would have to rebel against it in some way.
I'm going to use the word "you" here a lot, but it's just because I think using "a person" or "one" is cumbersome. Please interpret it as the hypothetical, general "you."
The problem with a statement like this is that I don't think most people apply the underlying principle in a general fashion. You may feel that because a law is in direct conflict with your personal moral code that you have a moral right, obligation, or need to rebel against the law. However, you may not feel that I have the right, obligation, or need to rebel against a different law that is in conflict with my moral code because it conforms to your moral code.
There's nothing wrong with voting your conscience, whether that conscience stems from religious or secular values. I would have difficulty finding it morally wrong to do so even in the absence of earthly evidence. However, if you wish not to be criticized for doing so, you should either accept that other people may do so while reaching the opposite conclusions as you for no apparent reason, or you should accept your own hypocrisy. (Again, I'm not saying that you, beverly, are a hypocrite or that you have a problem with other people voting without tangible evidence. I'm talking about the general "you.")
I have plenty of sympathy for people in the religious majority who feel that they are looked down upon for their beliefs, but I would hope that if, hypothetically, fifty years from now the majority of Americans were, say, Muslim, that these same people would voice no concerns or criticisms of people voting according to their Muslim values.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: So, "acting from one's conscience" is what makes for a "valid moral conclusion" in your view?
Yes.
quote: And is this an objective matter, or (in your view) is it a matter of your own personal taste?
Hmmmm, I think it is objective. I could be wrong. Is it possible to be objective about what one thinks is objective? Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:1. Each side will understand the other side's arguments better, and can adjust their own beliefs (or the presentation of those beliefs) accordingly.
2. Each side will understand their own position, and how it is perceived by the other side, better.
3. People who have not made up their minds are better educated about both views.
Dag (and bev), the reason I framed my question as I did was that I was trying to get at situations where the two "opponents" already understand each other's positions as completely as can be reasonably communicated. Around here it's not at all unlikely that two regulars will have a dialogue (or perhaps just opposing monologues) wherein both people are already fully aware of the other's point of view.
I can see points 2 and 3, though. I'm not sure that 3 is a good reason to start a dialog, but it can be a nice side-effect.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I am thinking about perhaps a Lord who sincerely believed it is his religious duty to do as outlined above. In that case, you might disagree with him, but I think you would still believe him to be reaching a valid moral conclusion.
This reminds me of the book "Hart's Hope". I was assuming that this was not a belief of conscience. But let's suppose it was? That would make it more valid (more honest) on his part, but my response would still be the same--to fight against it.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
On what grounds?
(*listening)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Saxon, I would try to be consistent on this. But I would also hold my first allegiance to my own conscience. If a person's religion included being warmongering by nature, with oppression and removing the rights of others, I would resist them as an evil force.
If someone sees me in this light, I would be puzzled and try to understand why they feel that way. If their reasons made sense, I would "accept" their criticism of me (hopefully) gracefully and continue to do what I believed was right. If I believed their reasons were based on misunderstandings, I would try to clear up those misunderstandings.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sara, can I flip this back for a second? I'm enjoying your conversation with Beverly immensely, but have a question along a similar vein to yours.
When you speak of tangible things that can be measured, how do you rate the different things being measured without resorting to intangible values?
For instance, say there's a vaccine that stops a disease that afflicts 1 in 10 non-vaccincated people, kills 1 in 100 of them (so 1 in 1000 die if no one's vaccinated), and cripples another 1 in 50 (so 1 in 500). Suppose the vaccine causes autism in 1 in 4 out of 1000 people who take it, and suppose we can't predict which people are more likely to suffer that effect.
To decide if we have to implement a policy of compulsive vaccination, we have to weigh the tangible harm in 1000 people: 1 death and 2 cripplings v. 4 autisms. How do we do that? I have pretty strong feelings that autism isn't as "bad" as death. But if the numbers were 3 autism in 10 vaccinations, I doubt anyone would think it was a good idea. Yet this judgment relies on weighing what is essentially an intangible - how many cases of autism are justified per prevented death?
And this analysis leaves out the basically intangible question of how much we want to respect the autonomy of persons over their body even when refusing vaccinations endangers themselves and others.
So when you say tangibles are what need to be considered, how far into the realm of intangibles similar to those above do you think we can go and still be dealing with tangibles?
Dagonee
DISCLAIMER: I do not believe vaccinations cause autism. This was merely a convenient hypothetical.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: Around here it's not at all unlikely that two regulars will have a dialogue (or perhaps just opposing monologues) wherein both people are already fully aware of the other's point of view.
Trevor and I are a good example of this. We had a wonderful discussion about religion and went away with mutual respect and understanding. As a result, we rarely discuss religion now unless we are both making comments on someone else's discussion and happen to respond to each other there.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: On what grounds?
(*listening)
Ummm, do you mean on what grounds would I fight against it? His religious or conscience-honest law conflicts with mine very strongly. It conflicts with it in the same way that a hungry wolf's desire to eat a rabbit conflicts with the rabbit's desire to live. We can't both have our way, so just as the rabbit must run for it's life, I must act according to my conscience and fight the oppression.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Dagonee, it's an important question. I'll refer you back to a post of mine from page 3:
quote:I'd agree as well that if we waited for the final evidence on every matter, we'd be paralyzed. But it seems to me that there is a fundamental difference between reasons for which it is possible to demonstrate material evidence, and those for which it is impossible to demonstrate evidence for them (i.e., "intangibles" whose effect in the material world cannot be measured).
There are ways of dealing with the former objectively in interpersonal discussions, but not the latter. That's why I have a problem with using such reasons as the (necessary) premises for interpersonal legislation.
That is, my level of discomfort sharply rises when we are dealing with claims of "real" effects which cannot be measured, are "intangible." I can see using intangible or abstract concepts as a basis for such discussions, but I would assume we would evaluate their usefulness or appropriateness by their (measurable) effects.
So, if you wanted to argue that requiring lobotomies* of citizens is justified as because only lobotomized citizens are quarkzerated, and you tell me that quarkzerated is a good thing (although you can't demonstrate what it is), I feel pretty confident in claiming that you gave a poor justification -- at least, poor with regards to other people.
The details of an individual case would matter on that particular case, of course. But I'd take having tangible effects as a prerequisite for an intangible premise to be even arguable for appropriate grounding of legislation. Make sense?
*(I'm not using your vaccination example because it is too easily conflated with reality. )
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Saxon, I would try to be consistent on this. But I would also hold my first allegiance to my own conscience. If a person's religion included being warmongering by nature, with oppression and removing the rights of others, I would resist them as an evil force.
To some degree everyone holds his or her own conscience above all other considerations. I think that's a somewhat inevitable consequence of being an individual mind. However, if everyone held no final authority but himself, it seems like the result would be chaos. The order created by living as a part of a society comes in part through submitting one's own will to the overarching laws and values of the society. But, I know you know this.
quote:If someone sees me in this light, I would be puzzled and try to understand why they feel that way. If their reasons made sense, I would "accept" their criticism of me (hopefully) gracefully and continue to do what I believed was right. If I believed their reasons were based on misunderstandings, I would try to clear up those misunderstandings.
You must know that there are people in the world who, completely understanding your reasoning, consider some of the things that you stand for "a force of evil." I sort of doubt that there is anyone who holds no beliefs that someone, somewhere considers "evil." Consider: If I understand your positions (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you consider that endorsement of homosexuality is at least on some level a force for evil, and you would work against it, at least insofar as you would vote for legislation defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Surely you must know that there are people out there who are aware of your reasons and consider your actions oppressive and "a force for evil." Are you puzzled as to why these people view you as such?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
quote:Ummm, do you mean on what grounds would I fight against it? His religious or conscience-honest law conflicts with mine very strongly. It conflicts with it in the same way that a hungry wolf's desire to eat a rabbit conflicts with the rabbit's desire to live. We can't both have our way, so just as the rabbit must run for it's life, I must act according to my conscience and fight the oppression.
Okay, I think I may understand.
His view may be just as valid as yours. (That is, it may be just as well thought-out, just as driven by conscience, just as imperative.) But because your view is yours, then that is the one you must act on.
Yes?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The details of an individual case would matter on that particular case, of course. But I'd take having tangible effects as a prerequisite for an intangible premise to be even arguable for appropriate grounding of legislation. Make sense?
I think so. So the ranking of tangible effects can be based on intangible principles, but intangible principles that cannot demonstrate a tangible effect are not useful in justifying legislation?
So "personal autonomy to refuse vaccinations is more important than the deaths caused by not vaccinating" is something that can be discussed and used in the legislative process because both sides of the formula are tangible, even though the decision to put an =, <, or > between the two sides is not? (Sorry, I couldn't fit the lobotomy into this structure.)
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sara: Yup.
Saxon: I don't know if I would go so far as to say it is a force for evil. Evil would be too strong a word. While I do think that people choosing to enter into homosexual relationships can have detrimental consequences on their immortal soul because of the nature of reality beyond what we can now perceive, I do not think that people who are homosexual by nature having homosexual relationships hurts me in any sort of direct way.
But I do think that influences that encourage people to act homosexual who might have acted heterosexually have a similar negative effect as the people eating beef have on my hypothetical "Hindu" (but not a Hindu). For this reason (and others), I do believe that marriage should remain a male/female relationship and be rewarded. I also believe that influences that encourage people to have extra-marital sex are similarly negative--in fact, more so. I am far more concerned about that than I am about gay marriage.
But if someone gave me the option to vote for a constitutional amendment that simply defined marriage (legally) as between man and woman, I would support it. I do not support "putting down" legal unions between homosexuals, however. I may not think such a union should be in all ways equal to marriage, but I do not wish to "punish" such unions either.
I have said that above in the effort to clear up any misunderstandings you or another may have about my beliefs. If you (or someone else) thinks my beliefs to be evil, I will try to be gracious about it and continue to believe as I feel is right. Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Just to be clear, I don't believe you to be evil. I disagree rather strongly with both your premises and conclusions, but I don't think you're evil. My question was just whether or not you were aware that people exist who would and whether you'd be puzzled by that. I probably should have used a different example, one less immediate to this particular discussion and one less emotionally charged.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Ok, I've made a decision. Before I was for giving Homosexuals equal rights along with Heterosexual couples in the form of a Union.
The comments on this thread have changed my mind.
I am now for the state and constitutional ammendments banning Gay marriage.
It has become clear that there are the minority of people in this country who don't give a rat's ____ what the majority of the people in this country want and are willing to abuse the judicial system in order to force their beliefs on the majority. If you are willing to compromise, but the other side is too pig headed to do so, then you go out and being the majority, you get what you want.
Just want to say thanks to all those who pushed me towards the banning of Gay Marriage from my previous view of equal rights for both.
But it has become evident that one side is really too stupid to realize that what they want is not what the majority of the people in this country want, but feel they have the right to force those views upon us.
So, ban gay marriage in all forms and the problem is solved. The rules will be clear, and the law will be one that the majority in the country will believe in and support, which is critical.
Thanks again.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Your statement doesn't seem to indicate any reason for your switch other than irritation with your opponents. That doesn't seem a very mature or logically sound course of action.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
No, I stated that it's clear that the opposite side is willing to abuse the judicial system in order to force their beliefs on the majority of people in this country.
That's not democracy and I oppose it. I supported a "compromise", but it's not a compromise if you are willing to give something up, but your opponent refuses.
That deal is off the table now.
The only way for the American people to get what they want is for it to be banned once and for all. Then the problem is solved and precedent is set. Marriage is then defined and protected and preserved on a federal level.
Sorry, you abuse it, you lose it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Edit: This was probably too mean, even as a response to this dreck.
[ October 11, 2004, 07:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
Oh, OK Chad. I didn't get what you were saying before, but now I see that you are absolutely right.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
How is the opposite side abusing the system? What was said here that gave you that impression?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, Chad, I guess you're right. Damn those people in a Democracy crazy enough to try to get people to change their minds and support gay marriage rights. What were they thinking? It's a clear thwarting of the majority will to try to do that. Fascists!
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Darn you, Ben! You took away my funny!
Honestly, "Get that man a beer and a portable television, stat!" was a relevant and humorous response to Ben's deleted post.
[ October 11, 2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
urge to kill rising...
i originally deleted this and then thought better of it and reposted, unfortunately too late for dags reference/response...nuts.
[ October 11, 2004, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Now you're just messing with me...
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I'm not wearing any pants, if that helps sooth your urges. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tee hee, I love it when people say "stat". Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: That deal is off the table now.
The arrogance of this statement is staggering, as is it's boundless immaturity.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
I think someone once accused Chad of being a liberal playing a caricature of a conservative. At first I thought she was nuts (or kidding), but now I'm not so sure....
P.S. I invoke the Squicky doctrine.
Posted by Defenestraitor (Member # 6907) on :
Actually, this one is my favorite:
"Just want to say thanks to all those who pushed me towards the banning of Gay Marriage from my previous view of equal rights for both."
As if his opinion were so important that we'd feel guilty about this...
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
quote:Nah, you'd only be an idiot if you didn't alter your view based on new information
I just needed to post that. I may need it later, in another thread.
--Steve
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Beren, I think you've kind of been missing my point. I certainly wasn't trying to set up a flag people could wave when they thought that their opponents argument was poorly constructed or factually innaccurate. The situations that I was talking about where when someone makes ridiculous statements and you have very good reason to believe that that person is behaving without integrity and that no constructive discussion will come out of even discussing their statements. It's for when the only reason you would respond to that person and those statements would be to try to show how ridiculous they are.
I fade in and out here, but I'm reasonably sure I've never seen any posts from bev that came anywhere near these things, nor would I ever expect bev to pull out a bunch of childish crap when someone disagrees with her. This is not to say that I don't often disagree with bev and sometimes even think that the basis for her reasoning is pretty tenuous, but I've never seen any reason to think that engaging bev on points you disgree with her on is going to lead to a series of meaningless and immature responses.
---
I really wasn't trying to set out some rule or doctrine that people could refer to. If that's how it ends up, well, whenever you post stuff, you pretty much lose control over how those ideas are used. However, I'd really like, if people are going to be using my name or referring back to me, to reserve it for cases where you could honestly say "What the crap are you talking about?" to someone's post and what they said was so ridiculous that that is really the best response you could offer.
Maybe I'm misreading the places where you've referenced this, but it seems to me that, in at least a couple of them, you've used it as a way of saying "I think that your arguments are poorly founded." and not because what people were saying was so absurd. If this isn't the case, then I'm way off base and I appologize, but as there's already grown up (completely independently, as far as I can tell) an unpleasant term that could be associated with my name, I'm a little cautious about having something else more connected to me taking on negative connotations.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squicky, I really don't think your doctrin was invoked in response to Bev.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Banna, Again, maybe I'm overreacting. I'm pretty leary of having my name attached to anything that I don't really control. Here's the post I was concerned about.
When I posted my advice, it was really for the people reading the advice, not a call to establish a rule or doctrine or something that would be used against other people. I could be overly sensitive, but that's how I was seeing it being used.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
and meant it in regards to a different post entirely.
AJ
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Squicky, I apologize for misusing your name. I don't think you are overreacting at all. Like you said, this is your name and if you feel like it has been abused by me you have every right to hold me accountable.
Furthermore, I apologize to Bev. I did not mean to imply that Bev was behaving without integrity. That was not my intent.
quote:Squicky:
...you've used it as a way of saying "I think that your arguments are poorly founded." and not because what people were saying was so absurd.
Guilty as charged. I'm not really saving the Squicky doctrine for the most outlandish posts in the world. I just kinda throw them out there whenever my gut reaction is "what the heck is he/she talking about?"
Here's the post in question:
quote:Bev:
Let me just play devil's advocate for a bit. Whatever those people are called who believe adult-child sex should be fine (I can't remember ATM) their argument seems to be that the only harm in it is the same sort of harm that happens in any abusive relationship--and abuse is wrong, but not the sex itself. They believe that if there were no associated taboo or guilt, there would be no negative effects--that we are denying children a beautiful and rewarding experience. You know, for all we know, they may be "right". Perhaps in such a society no harm would be found in any scientific study.
AJ:
Oh and I really wish you hadn't brought the adult-child sex thing up at all, because I believe it has a Godwin's Law like effect on an entire conversation.
MPH:
I don't think that's fair. Goodwin's Law works because people generally don't bring up Hitler/Nazis until they already have stopped listening to others. That is not the case with beverly.
Vwiggin:
I don't think this qualifies for Goodwin's Law, but the last sentence is close to violating Squicky's law.
There are plenty of reasons why having sex with minors is wrong beyond the "taboo" argument. Children cannot give meaningful consent, children are not emotionally or physically ready for sex, children cannot handle the consequences of sex, etc.
Of course, Bev's comments do not, as I asserted, "come close to violating Squicky's law." It was a stupid flip comment and again I apologize.
Some people bring up child abuse in gay marriage discussions in order to hint that somehow homosexuality and child abuse are related. For example:
quote:OSC:
The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
I really dislike it when people casually link child abuse with homosexuality. It is a dirty way of disparaging another person's lifestyle without any hard evidence.
Bev has a good track record here and there is no indication that she was intentionally linking child abuse and homosexuality. But I thought (wrongly) that this thread may be headed in that direction and that is why I made the "close to" remark.
To put your mind at ease, I think the only other place where I've invoked your name is on this very page and in this thread:
quote: Chad: According to you then, Kerry's plan is a draft since he doesn't include the Iraqi troops in his plan...
Vwiggin: I invoke the Squicky doctrine....
Dag, my problem isn't with the predictions. My problem is with the assertion that Kerry's plan doesn't include Iraqi troops.
Now that you made me explain myself, the Squicky doctrine has been nullified.
I have no good excuse for these. I was just pissed.
Now I promise not to use your doctrine again. Do you want me to edit the three instances where it has been used?
edited: To fix URL.
[ October 12, 2004, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: vwiggin ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chad, let me reiterate how glad I am that you don't hold any of my political positions; I'd have to reconsider them if you did.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)