quote:...the deterioration we speak of here is a deterioration of people’s fidelity to the order of marriage; it is not a deterioration of the order of marriage itself. That order is an ideal that cannot be corrupted by the failure of human beings to live up to it. It can be abandoned, replaced, and forgotten, but it cannot be corrupted.
I don't expect anyone that isn't LDS to care much about Terry Warner's points. I am posting it for those who may have been looking for a resource on this and for informational purposes. This will likely be my only post and I hope this is meaningful and helpful to someone here, as I have often benefitted from your postings of resources.
[ October 19, 2005, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: Kent ]
Posted by cosmictheclown (Member # 8257) on :
I don't know if you'll see this, Kent, but thanks for the link.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Adobe is evil.
That is all.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
You're welcome. As you can see, it isn't that this is my only post ever (I've had over 100), just that I'm not going to spend much time on discussion (many of us pretend to work at work); though feel free to discuss the ideas.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Heh-- my son asked me yesterday if the first apartment me and Mrs. R lived in was made from Adobe.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
You're welcome Olivet. FYI, just type in the PDF link into Google and they will give you an html alternative every time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The legal institution of man-woman marriage is such that the social institution, or way of life, comes with it, inseparably...
The thing is, this is what the author really needs to prove. He can't just say it as support for his argument when in fact it is his argument.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: The legal institution of man-woman marriage is such that the social institution, or way of life, comes with it, inseparably...
The thing is, this is what the author really needs to prove. He can't just say it as support for his argument when in fact it is his argument.
He can if he is talking to Mormons. We all take the statement for granted. Unless your an ex-Mormon who is now gay. (I know a few)
I usually never post on these threads because there is no point. We just don't see eye to eye. Again, I have friends who are gay, so it isn't like I'm gay bashing. But we don't agree about marriage. Doesn't mean we can't be friends, unless they attack me because we don't agree.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
TomD, that was my issue too. But it also appeared that he was preaching to the choir, as it were, and can understand it from that point, especially since he is trying to "bolster the defenses" not "attack the enemies".
Though his attempt at relating female infanticide in China, the fallout from the Communist Collapse in Russia, and single-parenthood in the US with the cheapening of marriage left me scratching my head.
-Bok
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It's one of those AR arguments that only makes sense within the context of the AR. Outside the AR, you don't even share common vocabulary.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
AR?
-Bok
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Arrr. You know. Pirates. Arrr.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Oooh, so Mormons are pirates? That explains the baby eating, maybe, a little, sorta....
Hmmm, AR - Asymmetrical Rearends? Abysmal Reality? Amorphous Rain? Actual Renderings? Area of Reference?
I vote for Asymmetrical Rearends.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
You'd have to be in the AR to know what AR means.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Baby eating is a traditional marriage practice I thought.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
Maybe "Accepted Religion"?
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
FWIW, Mormons view marriage as a contract between 3 people, God being the 3rd person.
Mormons don't even reconginse common law marriage. On my mission, I knew a couple that wanted to get baptized and join the church. Problem was, they weren't married. Well, they were legally because of common law marriage. But she wanted to have a huge wedding and they didn't have the money so they never got married, and still wouldn't. So they didn't join the church.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Sorry. I meant it as "Alternate Reality" but not in an offensive way.
That is, I think our basic beliefs color and adapt reality, at least in the way we experience it. Many cultural and religious groups have their own basic ideas as the foundation of the world they live in.
Oh, who am I kidding? We all do it. We all make assumptions about what things mean, and how things work. Religious and cultural institutions (and to some extent, individual families) have more stable realities, because of the number of people who share it.
Like, when I was in the Charismatic movement, if anyone ever said something like, "Sister So-and-so, I feel led by the Spirit to tell you the Truth, in Love" we would all cringe and run for cover, because we all knew the speaker was about to let Sister so-and-so have it.
To people outside that AR, it sounds maybe a little quaint, but entirely unthreatening. The AR is all about a shared understanding - so if you don't share the AR, you just don't 'get' it.
That's what I meant.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Is it a bad thing that I don't feel like reading all of that? So far I disagree with it, especially about the duality of sexes. Not that argument again... I really don't agree with that for some reason. Though, I do like the part about people adapting and changing to blend to each other, but gay couples can do the same, and doing that stupid Men are from Mars all men like football thing just makes me groan. Damn I hate cliches... I despise them...
Wow. For some reason the family as a temple depresses me... Perhaps because I do not share that conservative sort of outlook. Also that last part depresses me too... If by some fluke I get married, I'm not sure if my family would be traditional by his standards. I simply cannot force myself to fit one sort of role... one sort of concept. Why can't same-sex couples be thrusted into the covenantal order of responsibilities and rights of traditional marriage? Gyas have all sorts of issues that they go through in their relationships that many straight people wouldn't understand because they don't always have that added conflict of society completely being against your relationship.
Also, some marriages are ALREADY casual and imperminant, and this isn't because of gays and lesbians either...
Enough already.. It's not that simple. Marriage really isn't as threatened as these folks believe. if anything threatens marriage (IE prevents rebelous people such as myself from even wanting to get married, but that be because I am afraid of weddings, they scare me, but the idea of marriage both appeals to me and repels me) it is these extreme conservative structured values.. the idea that this is what marriage is, this is what the man's role is and what the woman's role. Not every person fits neatly into that concept... But, probably even the most wild and promiscuious person would eventually want to settle down...
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
It's a very good sumnation of the argument from the Mormon perspective.
Y'all who aren't Mormon may or may not realize that we already accept that our entire religion is based upon something which isn't empirically and scientifically provable, that being the testimony of the Holy Ghost that God exists, the Book of Mormon is true, Joseph Smith is a Prophet, etc. Once you have those things as a foundation, it all fits together.
quote: IE prevents rebelous people such as myself from even wanting to get married
Hmmmm...IE prevents me from surfing the internet without crashing, as I'm too lazy to get Mozilla.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Sorry. I meant it as "Alternate Reality" but not in an offensive way.
May I suggest that you use the term "world view" if you don't want it to sound offensive. The term "alternate reality" carries a connotation of falsehood, while world view has a neutral connotation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Doesn't mean we can't be friends, unless they attack me because we don't agree.
It's worth noting that this is roughly analogous to saying, "I know a lot of black slaves. They think they should be free, but I disagree. Doesn't mean we can't be friends, unless they attack me because I'm working to keep them in slavery."
I know this is an exaggeration, but I'm pointing out that to the perspective of many gay people wishing to marry, you are already attacking them. They do not believe that they are "attacking" first, but rather working to claim something that they believe is being actively denied them.
Whether you agree or not, I think it's useful to keep that perspective in mind.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
(Unrelated, but I didn't even notice i had over 5,000 posts!)
A few minutes ago I thought of traditional roles and my discomfort with them and how this fellow would definetly be against my idea of defining ones own concept of marriage...
[ October 19, 2005, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: I know this is an exaggeration, but I'm pointing out that to the perspective of many gay people wishing to marry, you are already attacking them. They do not believe that they are "attacking" first, but rather working to claim something that they believe is being actively denied them.
Likewise, one could say that to the perspective of NAMBLA, we are attacking them and stopping them from claiming something that is being actively denied them as well.
Now that's an exaggeration as well, but it's closer than the slavery misanalogy.
On our side, we believe that same-sex marriage is an attack on the foundation of our society, and will lead to the tribulations prophesied of in the scriptures. As we really do believe that, all of these changes are very alarming.
So they feel like we are attacking them, we feel like they are attacking us. However, as there are still legal measures to resolve these confrontations, there is still no reason why people on opposite sides cannot be friends.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
But there are other things that are attacking the institution of marriage. Why can't more focus be put on them? Poverty has a worse impact on marriage than same-sex marriage would.... Our foundations are all ready full of holes that need to be addressed instead. The gay marriage issue destracts from them.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: But there are other things that are attacking the institution of marriage. Why can't more focus be put on them? Poverty has a worse impact on marriage than same-sex marriage would.... Our foundations are all ready full of holes that need to be addressed instead. The gay marriage issue destracts from them.
That's a shell game. We are working on all of the other things that are attacking the institution of marriage. We don't have to limit ourselves to just the things that other people think destroy marriage.
And does poverty have a greater effect on marriage? I rather doubt that, especially as I'm way below the poverty line and our marriage is going fine. Plenty of poor people have wonderful marriages, and plenty of rich people have terrible marriages. Now, the societal effect of the government programs to "defeat" poverty do have a great effect on marriage, and we're working on that. War on Poverty. Hmmmmm...if we do as well in the "War on Terrorism" as we have done on the War on Poverty, then in fifty years it's going to look like Mad Max out there.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Master Blaster runs Bartertown. Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Well. Let me argue in defense of gay marriage.
As Mormons, we already don't recongnise one legal form of marriage (common law). Why should we care if the law recognises another and we don't? I honestly don't know what we would lose if the government recognises it, except our respect for the government, which is a lot to lose, but it wont be the end of the world.
Now to argue against gay marriage.
Mormon's view marriage as a "saving" ordinance, like baptism. To get saved, you have to get married. And we believe God was the one who taught humans to get married, starting with Adam. Well, 2 people of the same sex getting "married" is about the biggest insult to the ordinance that I can think of.
But as I said, I have friends who are gay. They know what I think, but it hardly matters because as friends, we choose not to dwell on our differences, even if they insult each other. I can't imagine anyone who doesn't have a difference that wont piss someone else off. It is when people dwell on the differences (ala fight for some cause) that friendship is no longer possible.
All I'm trying to do is make my position clear. There are many other anti-gay positions, and I don't really agree with any of them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Well, 2 people of the same sex getting "married" is about the biggest insult to the ordinance that I can think of. It no longer contains any of the original intent of the ordinance.
But my wife and I weren't married in a Mormon temple. Our marriage didn't have that "saving ordinance." And yet not a single Mormon on this site objected when I married her, even though my marriage had none of the intent of your temple ordinance.
Mormons already make the distinction between temple marriages and "normal" marriages; why would permitting homosexuals to enter into normal marriages affect the temple ordinances at all?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>>why would permitting homosexuals to enter into normal marriages affect the temple ordinances at all?
Tom, the Mormon church recognizes the power of civil authority to marry men and women. It recognizes the SANCTITY of state-sanctioned marriages.
Yes, there is a distinction drawn between temple marriages and non-temple marriages-- but the distinction is irrelevant to every day mortal life. It is a distiction only-- not an invalidation.
You're drawing false lines here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It recognizes the SANCTITY of state-sanctioned marriages.
Why? If two atheists are married in a ceremony in which God is not mentioned, what's sanctified about it?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What's important to me, Tom, is that you stop trying to color Mormon actions and doctrine from a distinctly non-Mormon viewpoint. You've said twice now that Mormons should not concern themselves with homosexual marriages because we don't honor civil marriages anyway. This is false.
>>If two atheists are married in a ceremony in which God is not mentioned, what's sanctified about it?<<
Victor Hugo has the Bishop of D____ in Les Miserables point out that the philosopher who rejects God by using logic and reason PROVES God by the use of those gifts.
A good act is holy no matter the belief of doer. Remember the parable of the sheep and goats-- those who gave aid didn't know who they were serving any more than those who didn't help the poor, sick, needy, etc.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's why Mormons lose nothing if gay people 'marry' or if they 'civil union' or if they have a 'one night stand'.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
It's interesting to note that the LDS church's view of "common law" marriage has changed relatively recently. When I was a missionary in Brazil, due to their extremely strict laws concerning divorce, it was exceedingly common to find couples co-habitating sometimes for over 30 years, with multiple childred together, who were not legally married because they could not obtain a divorce from a previous marriage. Often they had not even seen the previous spouse in decades. The policy of the church during the first half of my mission is that such couples could be baptised and join the church if they would sign an "intent to marry" once it became a legal option. Sometime near the end of my mission that policy changed and baptism was denied unless the couple ended the co-habitation. I served from 06/86 to 07/88.
(Caveat: I have no way at this point to back this up or provide a link. I'm assuming it was church policy because it definitely was mission policy in the Brasil Campinas Mission and I can't imagine such a policy would be left up to a mission president without church sanction.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Storm: Except that the church does not define gay marriage or one night stands as 'good.'
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Karl -- I'm not so sure that was a church-wide shift. Maybe it cane from the mission president, maybe it came from the regional representatives (that's what we had back then, isn't it?), maybe it came from the regional presidency (did we have those back then?), but I know that in Italy in the early 70s (when my Pa served) it was more like it is today.
My father knew of one co-habiting couple that got permission from SLC to get baptized (after decades of activity in the church), but the general rule was against it.
---------
Tom -- you keep saying that these things shouldn't matter to us. It reminds me of the baptism for the dead thread we had a couple of years ago.
The gist was that some people were getting really offended that LDS were performing the ordinance of baptism for the dead on behalf of other people's dead ancestors. It was very easy for me to sit on this side of the fence and say "Why should it matter to you? You don't believe in what we're doing anyway, so what affect could it possibly have on you?"
I never got a response that I found satisfying. I suspect that the same will be for you. You don't think we should be bothered by it, and yet we are.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
MPH - OK. I have to admit that my experience was specifically Brazilian. The whole concept was strange to me, at the time. Since there was no reason for such a policy in the US I had never considered such an option.
But even if the policy, as such, came from someone more locally involved, I can't imagine it would have been inacted without 1st Presidency authorization.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I certainly can imagine, especially in Brazil. I heard many tales of goings on in the years before my mission in Brazilian missions that got shut down when general authorities visited the missions and got wind of it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom-
Maybe the distinction you're looking for is this:
Your marriage could become a temple marriage if you so chose (or one of your decendants, by proxy). A SSM could not (under current church doctrine).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Porter -- A difference is that no one who opposes LDS baptism for the dead even suggested passing laws against it. Whereas in the case of same sex marriage some of the proposed (recently passed?) laws not only deny recognition but ban anything resembling it – such as corporations providing benefits to same sex partners even if they choose to. There’s a difference, IMO, between being “bothered” by something but acknowledging the legal right for others to practice it and trying to ban something because it “bothers” you.
And believe me, the idea that a future LDS relative could decide that my baptism didn’t count and try to do it over bothers me every bit as much as the idea that the law could recognize marriages that don’t fit the LDS definition of marriage bothers you. In fact, it’s a pretty good analogy –re-baptism is outside my (and many Christians’) definition of the sacrament of baptism – a sacrament which can only be performed once. The fact that LDS (and Baptists, and some other denominations) re-baptize adults who were baptized as children weakens that definition. It would make me very happy if that weren’t the case – if all denominations recognized baptism as once and forever thing. But I’m not about to argue that there should be state-support for that position.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I never said that they were the same, dkw. I know that there are differences.
My only point was that saying "You guys shouldn't even be bothered by this" is likely to be as fruitless in Tom's case as it was in mine.
I was using it as an example of one thing, not an analogy for the whole situation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I know that. I am, as I've said, pleased with the example. It works well as an explanatory thing in both directions.
Edit: or to put it more bluntly, I am using it as an analogy for the whole situation. But in the opposite direction.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK. I have to admit that the analogy does have legs, even though I don't like that it weakens, rather than supports, my position. Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Yeah, don't ya just hate it when that happens. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But of course I do!
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
That feels like a quote from somewhere, but I do not know my next line.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
Although speaking on SSM and temple marriages, it seems rather likely that the Church will end up being legally discriminated against when we refuse to allow a fusion of the two.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If it's a quote, I did it on accident.
Also, let me point out that you didn't use the analogy in the opposite direction, since my example wasn't in any direction (about the subject of SSM) at all. I was just saying that "You shouldn't be bothered by X." won't get you anywhere.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Boy was that little exchange a rare jewel in online discourse!
Dang it! I have new pages. I was referring to the exchange between dkw and MPH a few posts up from the bottom of the preceding page. <sigh>
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: Although speaking on SSM and temple marriages, it seems rather likely that the Church will end up being legally discriminated against when we refuse to allow a fusion of the two.
I don't believe this. We've never been forced to (or legally discriminated against because we wouldn't) perform temple marriages for people that don't fit our requirements. I don't see why that would change now.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's also the difference that in baptism for the dead, you are doing it to the people who are bothered by it, whereas gay marriage you're bothered because other people are doing something which doesn't directly affect you.
quote:We are working on all of the other things that are attacking the institution of marriage.
I'm gonna call shenanigans on this. The vast majority of the "Defense of Marriage" movement is not only solely focued on anti-gay stuff, but is being carried out by religious groups that have around the highest divorce and spousal and child abuse rates in the country edit: as per ratings on religious status). Even if gay marriage were a threat to marriage, which I haven't seen anyone offer an actual tenable case for or predictions of how it would destroy marriage, it is hardly anywhere near the biggest threat. And yet it has by far the most energy expended on it.
quote:On our side, we believe that same-sex marriage ... will lead to the tribulations prophesied of in the scriptures. As we really do believe that, all of these changes are very alarming.
You may believe that, but I've get the feeling from the many conversations that I've had with people on this board that most of your co-religionists here would not agree with you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There's also the difference that in baptism for the dead, you are doing it to the people who are bothered by it,
No we aren't. We doing it to dead people. If they are bothered by it, they certainly haven't said so.
quote:Boy was that little exchange a rare jewel in online discourse! [Smile]
Was I just slyly insulted? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And yet it has by far the most energy expended on it.
I promise you that I spend far more energy in keeping my marriage strong and loving than in trying to fight off SSM.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Although speaking on SSM and temple marriages, it seems rather likely that the Church will end up being legally discriminated against when we refuse to allow a fusion of the two.
Many of the same people who are fighting against you imposing your religion on others have and are currently fighting for your religious freedom as when others try to impose their religion on you and when your free pratice thereof is being obstructed. I don't think your worry here is well-founded.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I have asked that question about why God accepts marriages outside the Temple Covenant. All of it stems from two religious precepts.
The first is that Mormons believe that governments are set up specifically by God, even if humans are the ones running the show. As such, we are close to commanded to follow earthly laws (and you can see some difficulties this can and has caused when laws go against other LDS teachings). The penultimate governmental system is either Democracy or Righteous Kingship.
The second point of note is the sanctity of marriage as defined by a Man and a Woman together. Now, because of the first precept, marriage in or outside a Church is acceptable as long as it is lawfully recognized. This is where common law marriages becomes tricky. Once they are legally recognized as a couple, do they become a couple in the eyes of the Church; or more importantly God?
I think the answer to that is No. This is because God works according to recognized Covenants regardless of if it is under government or LDS Church sanction. Admittedly this last point is a lot more my own opinion than the above two. Still, God works according to order and not chaos. As such, he will not permit "willy-nilly" self-appointed actions. There must be a combination of Commitment and Legal/Ecclesiastical recognition.
From this, it might be possible to say that for Mormons a legalization of gay-marriage is similar to a recognition of same as religiously legit. At least from a secular governmental standpoint. What that practically means for the LDS Church I don't know.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The first is that Mormons believe that governments are set up specifically by God, even if humans are the ones running the show.
This Mormon doesn't believe that.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
We do believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law of the land.
That doesn't mean the that governments are set up by God (although there is a belief that the founding fathers were divinely inspired).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Read section 134 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The first verse reads:
quote:We believe that governments were instituted by God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think there is a big difference between what that AoF are saying and what you were saying.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
No insult intended MPH. I just think that exchange would have happened differently on almost any other forum and even between almost any two different people on this forum. So I meant "rare" as in unusual for online discourse, not unusual for MPH. To the contrary, I think it was because it was you and dkw that it was amiable where such exchanges often don't even merit "civil".
. . . but leave it to me to word a compliment so obscurely that it reads like an insult. <pouts>
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Karl, I was giving you a hard time. I knew it was a compliment.
*poke*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I thought you might have, but I'm insecure like that. Especially on a controversial thread. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Btw, mph - One of my deeply held beliefs (part of my basic AR, if you will) is that we do, in fact, alter reality by means of our beliefs. So, in my AR, "AR" is not offensive. I thought that explanation would be enough, because it is also part of my AR that people give each other the benefit of the doubt.
Obviously, it doesn't translate well into your view of things, but I see no reason to retract it. The words are not offensive, only the meaning you chose to impose on them. Which was not my meaning at all.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Olivet -- I wasn't offended. I understood your explination.
But I still think that the term Alternate Reality has enough of a connotation that it will hinder communication in many situations. This is why I suggested using the value-neutral term World View.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Here's the thing. People aren't pushing for Mormons to change their definition of marriage. No one is saying that you can't continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman or that it is a mistake to allow same sex couples to marry. Mormons are not being enjoined to "give up" anything in terms of how they hold and regard marriage.
What you are being as to give up is the idea that you can force other people to live according to your ideas without any arguments for this besides "My interpretation of God says so." What is legally permissible or prohibited does is not the same thing as one's conscience or beliefs. I don't believe in anything the Neo-Nazis have to say, but I won't say we need to pass laws so they can't say or believe it. OSC has said that we should, from time to time, throw gay people in jail to send a message to the rest of them. We may find that idea reprehensible, but we're not going to stop him from saying or thinking it, even though we will stop people from enacting something so blatantly illegal.
You are perfectly free to hold on to your definition of marriage, even if other people are not forced to follow it, in the same way that you are perfectly free to follow your religion even though other people can follow whatever other religion they want. One has to wonder how strong your commitment to it is if you feel that your fidelity to it will be destroyed it if doesn't have strict government endorsement.
edit: added a not and fixed a run-on sentence.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Storm: Except that the church does not define gay marriage or one night stands as 'good.'
That's right. It doesn't. That's why those things don't really effect Mormons, because Mormons live by a different code wherein those things have been, are, and will be, 'sinful'.
Edited for, I hope, clarity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
People keep saying that Mormons shouldn't be bothered by it.
That ain't gonna change a thing. Many of us are.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I completely understand, mph, and that just underscores my point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:OSC has said that we should, from time to time, throw gay people in jail to send a message to the rest of them.
This is an old argument, but I'll just point out that I feel that the statement you're drawing on, Mr. Squicky, was not meant in that light.
--------
Storm Saxon,
I think the contention is, you're telling people 'this doesn't effect you', not just that it shouldn't bother you.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place
I know you don't think that this is about homosexuals, but well, it is.
edit: Added more of the quote to answer the "Where does it talk about jail?" and to make it clear what OSC though the purpose of that statement was.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The funny thing is, this thread is about what Mormons feel they will lose by modifying the current legal definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages.
And people are still saying, "You won't lose anything." Now, I can understand and even agree that the Mormon view of marriage should not be the guiding light for the law of the land. Even though Mr. Squicky is incorrect in his constant statements that none other but exclusively religious reasons opposing SSM exist, I agree that those reasons are insufficient to justifiably block SSM.
Can anyone understand why, possibly, some people feel threatened by the possibility of SSM? It's not enough that you tell them they're wrong about a political issue, but that you tell them they're wrong about their own religion?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: *sigh* And I quote from here:
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
The goal of the polity is not to put homosexuals in jail. The goal is to discourage people from engaging in homosexual practices in the first place
I know you don't think that this is about homosexuals, but well, it is.
Where does that say send people to jail?
There's many ways to use those laws, and many ways to punish without jail. For example, the [i]Lawrence[i] plaintiffs were not jailed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, Mr. Squicky, I clearly remember the discussion we had about that. And I stand by my argument that that statement does not necessarily equal, as you're implying, "Throw the occassional queer in jail to keep the rest of `em in line."
There are other possibilities. But like I said, that's an old argument, and I'm not going to discuss it further here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know you don't think that this is about homosexuals, but well, it is.
Well, Mr. Squicky, as much as I know you'd like to, and as much as I know you're sure you're smarter and better than everyone else...no, you don't get to do my thinking for me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Rakeesh,
Yeah, and I was one of them. I think that that was sloppy on my part. Obviously, if the general culture around Mormons changes, this is going to bleed over to some degree into the Mormon culture. However, it is my opinion that just as groups of Mormons function quite well all over the world when they go out on mission, just as they function quite well in states where they are a minority, gay marriage will effectively minimally impact them, even if it becomes widespread.
Thread moves fast.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I edited the quote to include the part about jail, because I could already hear your objection before you posted it.
edit: Oh wait, you got the edit. Errr...he specifically mentions what he think the immediate effect of the laws will be, to put gays in jail.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Here's the thing. People aren't pushing for Mormons to change their definition of marriage.
That's exactly what people are pushing to do. I'm a citizen of MA and so am currently required to recognize a government sanctioned same-sex union as a marriage. Before the SJC's decision I did not define marriage that way. Therefore I've been forced to change my definition of marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you admit he doesn't want to put them in jail?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, if you now support gay marriage, Senoj, then I welcome you to the pro-gay marriage camp. I'll be looking forward to your posts supporting gay marriage. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't know about what he actually wants and doesn't want. I can speculate on it and I see no reason here to believe that he is insincere when he says his goal isn't to put gays in jail.
But I can know what he is advocating, which is, as I claimed, throwing gay people in jail from time to time in order to send a message to the rest of them.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm a citizen of MA and so am currently required to recognize a government sanctioned same-sex union as a marriage.
No, you're not. You are completely free to believe that a same sex union is not a marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't know about what he actually wants and doesn't want. I can speculate on it. But I can know what he is advicating, which is, as I claimed, throwing gay people in jail from time to time in order to send a message to the rest of them.
He is not advocating throwing people in jail.
He is advocating keeping laws on the book that criminalize gay behavior and invoking them occasionally. He does not say that the sentences handed out should be jail time, or that the laws should even include jail as the sentence.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I'm a citizen of MA and so am currently required to recognize a government sanctioned same-sex union as a marriage.
No, you're not. You are completely free to believe that a same sex union is not a marriage.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by definition of marriage. I don't believe the definition of marriage can be purely internal, as you seem to be implying, because I live and work in a community that requires me to apply that definition of marriage. In essence, my definition of marriage must harmonize with the government's definition of marriage, or I'm liable to be punished by the government. Therefore, when the governemntal definition of marriage changes I am forced to bring my definition into harmony with it or be prosecuted.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Ummm, you can recognize that SS union as a legal marriage. Just because you hold a (as near as I can tell) religious assumption that the two are intertwined, doesn't make it so in law. In fact, you are only required to recognize the marriage where law requires you.
Government CANNOT (IMO) change any individual's definition. They can change their own, which is codified in law, but that's it.
I think that's why I find this whole debate confusing. Many people can't seem to separate legal definition from individual conscience, or so it seems to me.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
See, I read that as him acknowledging that what he is saying will include throwing gay people in jail and but then suggesting that this is not what his ultimate goal is. I also don't believe in light of his stated desire of sending a message that anything less visible than sending them to jail would suffice. But looking at it, while I feel that is by far the most likely interpretation, I can see you have enough wiggle room that this might not be what he's saying.
Rakeesh, on the other hand, is trying to claim that the sky isn't blue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think the answer to that is No. This is because God works according to recognized Covenants regardless of if it is under government or LDS Church sanction.
See, I don't quite get this, Occasional, because what it implies is that God is somehow bound by human law -- provided that a covenant has been entered into.
In other words, non-temple marriages count -- to God -- because American law recognizes them and the two people involve enter into a deliberate covenant. Common-law marriages, presumably, do not work because the two people have not entered into a covenant, even if the government has recognized the marriage.
But in the case of same-sex marriage, don't we have two people entering into a covenant? The question there becomes whether the covenant itself is acceptable to God.
Two options, then: 1) The covenant is acceptable to God. If that's the case, then everybody wins.
2) The covenant is not acceptable to God. If that's the case, same-sex marriages are no more real than common-law marriages, but just as legal and presumably no worse for society or for Mormon temple marriage. Gays married under this law will be no more considered married in the afterlife than common-law spouses.
Is there a third alternative I'm not seeing?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Bok-
I think the issue you point out is about political philosophy, not religion. I was reading this morning about modern liberalism vs. communitarianism and immediately thought of this debate. I identified with communitarians in that I believe "people are not just isolated autonomous individuals but (1) live in communities in which they have responsibilities, (2) are partly defined by those communities, (3) are partly defined by the ends the have and by conceptions of what morality is, and that (4) morality is a social phenomenon and meanings are social, not individual." (Moral Reasoning, Lakoff, pg. 20) (Sorry for the lengthy quote but it put everything so neatly I just had to write it all).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I live and work in a community that requires me to apply that definition of marriage. In essence, my definition of marriage must harmonize with the government's definition of marriage, or I'm liable to be punished by the government. Therefore, when the governemntal definition of marriage changes I am forced to bring my definition into harmony with it or be prosecuted.
There's a huge difference between the legal relationship of marriage and the religious (or otherwise personal one). You are required to follow the laws in terms of what people in this legal relationship are entitled to (and I'm curious as to what roles do you fill in society where this will call on you to do that?), but you are not required to change your definition of marriage, nor is your religion, nor is your community. The essay in question is saying that if LDS allow same sex marriage, they will be giving up fidelity to the order of marriage within their own communities. My reply has been that acknowledging that you don't have a right to force other people to follow your religion does not in any way constitute giving up fidelity to that religion. You are free to define marriage for yourself as you wish. That is not being interfered with here. It is when you try to define it for other people that you run into problems.
In fact, from the viewpoint of some theologians, forcing people to profess your religion, denying any choice in the matter, actually hurts your religion and the people you are forcing.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tom-
You've convinced me. I now oppose common law marriage, too*
*(Post meant in good fun, don't get up in arms, I'm just trying to be funny, notice the winky)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Squick-
I'll just point you to what I said about communitarianism. I don't believe it's possible to divorce the two as completely as you seem to believe.
And before any political scientists pound me on the head with why my view of communitarianism is incorrect let me just say I'm a novice. If you must pound, please be gentle.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, I believe in the social, communitarian nature of people too. That's not inconsistent with what either Bok or I are saying. I've repeatedly stated that your religious community can define marriage within the bounds of that community as they wish. However, when you are talking of the larger community and especially when you are talking of governmental laws which govern how force is applied in that community, a different standard must be used. At the heart of Enlightenment liberalism is the idea of setting up nations where individuals and communities with very different beliefs can coexist relatively pecefully.
Even if we accept your communitarian argument here, what it then boils down to is that gays and people who support them are not full members of the American community. In contrast, what I am arguing is a way in which we are all equal members in the community.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You've convinced me. I now oppose common law marriage, too
I would actually consider this a more defensible position.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
People keep arguing that I ought not to vote as I believe if those beliefs are centered in religion. To me that is simply a distinction that is at best impossible, at worst oppressive. If I was an atheist I could vote however I want even though for all practical purposes I am my own God so to speak and I command myself?
Within Mormonism it is their never ending goal that all the world learn God's plan. How can we go abroad and say "This is what we believe." and then have people respond "no you dont, it says right here that in Utah you voted to approve same sex marriages, your beliefs are inconsistant to put it nicely.
What would you have us do if say 99% of the world said "we dont want to hear Mormons talk about their beliefs, we are sending them all to a nice large island, and we will pay all their expenses" We could argue that we have the right to free speech and to vote against laws of that nature but your counterarguements would be more or less the same as they are now. "Your welcome to practice your religion however much you want, you are merely being asked to politely leave the rest of us alone. "Why do you HAVE to proselyte? Its not like you cant live your own religion if I dont want to hear what you have to say."
Think of the consequences of Mormons voting to OK gay marriage in this nation. Yesterday we could teach the "plan of salvation" to individuals. We could say to homosexuals, "God loves you, and he has prepared a way that is better than you could understand right now" and some would reject that message, some would embrace it. It is a HUGE change to be honest. Now lets look at several years down the road with missionaries knocking on the door of say a homosexual couple who have been happily married for 10 years. They listen to our message with happiness and joy, at least until we teach them that though their union has brought them happiness, it is a imitation of God's true plan, and that God has a better way for them. The only way they can begin to find that true happiness is to break up with each other. I cannot even fathom what it would be like to tell 2 people who have shared everything together that they need to now split up and never have the same relationship again. I FIRMLY believe that this would be neccesary but how much HARDER is it to ask that of somebody? I would MUCH rather the 2 had never married and been that much less solidified in their union before encountering the message I would bring them.
Yes you might flame me and say if they are happy they dont need your religion. But I believe there is a quality of happiness and joy that many never experience in this life. I firmly believe my religion is the truth, and I owe it to others to share that message or risk damning myself. You want me to vote for a law that would endorse a lifestyle that makes sharing that message infintesimally more difficult? I might as well vote yes and keep my mouth shut the rest of my life.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bokonon,
quote:Ummm, you can recognize that SS union as a legal marriage. Just because you hold a (as near as I can tell) religious assumption that the two are intertwined, doesn't make it so in law. In fact, you are only required to recognize the marriage where law requires you.
Yes, but it makes them intertwined to Senoj.
quote:No, you're not. You are completely free to believe that a same sex union is not a marriage.
'Believe' is not the word Senoj used.
-------
And the sky isn't always blue, Mr. Squicky. Sometimes it's white, or gray, or black, or black with little white spots, or red, or purple, or orange, or pink, or many varieties of those. Anyway, like I said, it's an old argument.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Within Mormonism it is their never ending goal that all the world learn God's plan. How can we go abroad and say "This is what we believe." and then have people respond "no you dont, it says right here that in Utah you voted to approve same sex marriages, your beliefs are inconsistant to put it nicely.
If you're afraid that people will fail to convert to Mormonism because they'd be averse to demonstrations of Mormon hypocrisy, I think there are much higher priorities you should be addressing within Mormon culture itself. I haven't heard anyone say "I can't be Mormon because you haven't successfully banned alcohol yet."
quote: The only way they can begin to find that true happiness is to break up with each other. I cannot even fathom what it would be like to tell 2 people who have shared everything together that they need to now split up and never have the same relationship again.
I sincerely believe that this is a complaint you should address directly to your God, who (IMO) should really do something about the problem.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Senoj, I believe in the social, communitarian nature of people too. That's not inconsistent with what either Bok or I are saying. I've repeatedly stated that your religious community can define marriage within the bounds of that community as they wish. However, when you are talking of the larger community and especially when you are talking of governmental laws which govern how force is applied in that community, a different standard must be used. At the heart of Enlightenment liberalism is the idea of setting up nations where individuals and communities with very different beliefs can coexist relatively pecefully.
Even if we accept your communitarian argument here, what it then boils down to is that gays and people who support them are not full members of the American community. In contrast, what I am arguing is a way in which we are all equal members in the community.
Yet you are telling the Mormons EVERYWHERE they do not have the right to live in a society they feel comfortable with. If you were throwing a vegan social dinner you are in effect saying "Some new people would like to socialize with us but they can't give up the practice of eating meat but they have the right to be here just as much as any of you do. Some would say "I find it appaling to watch people eat meat", and your response would be "They have no problem with you not eating it, you seem to be the one with the problem. I would say "Well as a guest I am would rather the host not allow people to this social function who are going to eat meat in front of me" Your response would be "That would be infringing on their rights that every man and woman has" and I would finally say "What about my rights to be in an environment I am comfortable with? When did their rights become more important than mine?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BlackBlade, Athiests are themselves bound by the same ideas of indivudal rights and suggestions towards objectively based legal arguments as religious people. They can't just say "I don't feel like recognizing religious people's marriages, so they don't get to be married." In the area of laws, there really isn't anything forcing you to act as a responsible member of a pluralistic society, but this is not merely a question of laws, but one of codifying unequal treatment before the law for no other reason than your religious prejudice.
Your island example is not valid. You are not in anyway being removed from the marketplace of ideas. In fact, many of the very people who fight for gay rights, fight many of the people you've allied with in your fight against gay rights when they (e.g. the evangelical Christians) try to pass laws prohibiting you from prostyletizing. I don't necessarily agree with your religion or think that it's spread is a good thing for the country (and it certainly doesn't agree with my religious beliefs) but I have no right to try to force you to stop. That's what it means to be an American.
I don't think you want to leave the paragraph about how, since gay marriage will lead to gays living happier and more fulfilling lives together, it's going to make converting them to LDS harder. It makes you look really, really bad.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:No, you're not. You are completely free to believe that a same sex union is not a marriage.
'Believe' is not the word Senoj used.
Nor was it the word Squick used in his initial post. He evidentally thought it was implied in the "your definition" (your definition being only about your belief) which is why I inserted my communitarianism comment.
Squick- I don't know if my views on SSM coincide with those of other communitarians (look at me, I first heard the term this morning and already I'm self-identifying). All I was saying is that the four points enumerated in my quote above describe why I feel that it's my social responsibility to voice my opposition to SSM (regardless of the reasons for that opposition) and why I feel society should be reactive to that. And why I think the "You don't have to accept it, as long as you accept it legally" argument doesn't carry much weight with me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Yet you are telling the Mormons EVERYWHERE they do not have the right to live in a society they feel comfortable with. If you were throwing a vegan social dinner you are in effect saying "Some new people would like to socialize with us but they can't give up the practice of eating meat but they have the right to be here just as much as any of you do.
Big difference. America is a country of the people, by the people, for the people, not of the Mormons, by the Mormons, for the Mormons.
If I had the power, I'd give LDS the choice between a country where they have to accept that other people have the right to live other than by an LDS lifestyle versus one where the dominant evangelical Christians force the LDS to live according to their version of religion and see which one they felt more uncomfortale in. But I don't, so I just don't have much sympathy when people complain that the same rights and laws that protect them from having someone else's religion forced on them make them uncomfortable that they can't force their religion on others.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I dont care if it makes me look REALLY REALLY bad. The fact you want me to keep my mouth shut about something wonderful most do not understand and to make the world more closed to it makes YOU look really really bad.
Its a faulty example to compare keeping marriage a heterosexual institution and baring the right of people to speak.
Were you to pass laws saying Mormons cannot proselyte you allow for ANYONE or any race, creed, belief to be shut up. It would bring back the Alien Sedetion acts, and the Espionage act of 1917. People would all live in fear and could not in reality live in this country. If homosexuals cannot get married YES there are things they are being denied, but the right to speak their beliefs is certainly not one of them.
You are saying I don't have the right to BAN gay marriage. Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, But then what is to stop people who have problems with your religion from voicing their opposition (and let me state again that I have no problem with people voicing their opinions on this) and expecting society to be reactive to it? The Baptists and others don't have to accept that your religion is right or even that your marriages are valid, but they do have to accept that they have no right to deny you equal treatment before the law or deny you the legal benefits of being married.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Forcing you to accept it in no way infringes upon any of the rights granted to you by the laws of your country. Whether or not banning it infringes upon the rights granted to others by said laws is the subject of this debate.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You keep using the term "force my beliefs on others" yes I know all about the tyranny of the majority but what are you suggesting? That the majority always difer to the opinions of the minority so as not to offend anybody? Welcome to the tyranny of the minority. Where those in the majority are wrong because they are the majority, and they are expected to check themselves while the minority is allowed to do as it wishes.
Where voting is the same thing as commanding.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But then what is to stop people who have problems with your religion from voicing their opposition (and let me state again that I have no problem with people voicing their opinions on this) and expecting society to be reactive to it?
I understand where this question comes from, but I think it needs to be abstracted from religion because of first amendment issues. Try taking issue with one of my perceived rights that aren't federally protected and I'll try to answer (this isn't intended snarkily; I think it's a good dialogue to have, I just don't think religion can be used as the example with a repeal of the first amendment).
Say, right to procreate. What would stop someone from telling me I had no right to have children with my wife, because of say genetic incompatibility, and expecting the government to be reactive? Is that a good surrogate issue?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Forcing you to accept it in no way infringes upon any of the rights granted to you by the laws of your country. Whether or not banning it infringes upon the rights granted to others by said laws is the subject of this debate.
But they are the same thing. It is being said "you ought not vote to ban something as it forces your views on others" but who brought the SSM debate to the table? So if SSM advocates pass a bill that allows for SSM, I am morally and legally required to abide by it, but if I want SSM advocates to do the same thing with legislation of the polar opposite nature I am in the wrong?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, You misunderstand me. What you said reflects very poorly on you and your position. As someone who opposes you, I don't have a problem with you saying it. I'm glad you said it. However, as a person relating to you as a person, I am hoping that you will look at that statement to see why people are going to find it so objectionable and perhaps learn from this. But I would never ban you from saying it.
You may have missed it, but I am all for a society that will never ban LDS for prostyletizing, even though I myself may not agree with the religion. As I've said, sticking up for the rights of people that you don't necessarily agree with is what it means to be an American, or at least what it should mean.
quote:You are saying I don't have the right to BAN gay marriage. Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
The Enlightenment, the ideals of Liberty and Equality, the Declaration of Independence, but most specifically the 1st and the 14th Ammendments of the U.S. Constituion.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Forcing you to accept it in no way infringes upon any of the rights granted to you by the laws of your country. Whether or not banning it infringes upon the rights granted to others by said laws is the subject of this debate.
Neither is denial of SSM infringing on any rights granted to gay couples by the laws of the country (if we're talking about the US outside of MA). Calling SSM a civil right doesn't automatically make it one. If denying it doesn't infringe on rights and granting it doesn't infringe on rights then I don't see how rights come into it.
<edit> A good case of posting too quickly. I didn't read the post carefully and would delete this now if I could.</edit>
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
A marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a wedding.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Forcing you to accept it in no way infringes upon any of the rights granted to you by the laws of your country. Whether or not banning it infringes upon the rights granted to others by said laws is the subject of this debate.
But they are the same thing. It is being said "you ought not vote to ban something as it forces your views on others" but who brought the SSM debate to the table? So if SSM advocates pass a bill that allows for SSM, I am morally and legally required to abide by it, but if I want SSM advocates to do the same thing with legislation of the polar opposite nature I am in the wrong?
No, they are not the same thing. How does being legally required to abide by a law that allows same-sex marriage infringe on your rights?
It doesn't. So that's a non-issue, and beside the point.
The real question is, "does a same-sex marriage ban violate the rights of homosexuals?" If it doesn't, then that's a legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, if it does, then that's a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: A marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a wedding.
Once again, bumpersticker wisdom ends the debate Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: A marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a wedding.
Saying this doesn't make it true. The definitions of words are not written in stone. In fact, there are legal homosexual marriages in my country (Canada).
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Wow. I didn't expect a response to that one at all. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, Part of my point is that the same constituational protections that apply to you being free to practice your religion make up a significant part of the reasons why you can't force your religion on others in this way. But okay, I'll still give it a try.
How about we keep it closer to the debate and bring up the perennial attendent issue of interracial marriage? Some religions in America still ban interracical marriage. From what I understand it some flavors of it were implicitly semi-banned in LDS up until the late 70s (what with the Black people can't have the priesthood). However, do you think it would at all legitimate for these people to ban interracial marriages, say if they made up the majority in some city? (I'm obviously ignoring the full faith and credit clause here.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm interested to know in what way BlackBlade's life will actually change or even be slightly inconvenienced by having to "abide by" a law that will give my relationship with Chris legal protection.
What legal freedom are you enjoying now that you won't have then?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
I love Hatrack Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
What I originally typed was "A marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is just a wedding. People want a wedding, I say go for it. It's just pageantry anyway."
But I shortened it to make it more ambiguous: 'Is he serious? Is he not serious?' Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Senoj, the thing is we are both an individual and members of communities, with a stress on the plural. To varying degrees, we identify with different communities, not all of which are completely complementary, nor that we necessarily agree with in toto.
I'm a self-labeled liberal (of the modern sense), but that doesn't mean I agree with the rationales (or even the goals) of every animal-rights/environmentalist/feminist/whatever group might find a home under the same umbrella.
And that's where the delineation of the rights and goals of every community comes in. The US government doesn't presume to act/speak for your god, my god, TomD's FSM. It restricted itself in that regard from the outset. So its definition of marriage cannot, intrinsically, be yours, mine, or Tom's. Our definitions are larger than that. So in a sense, I can see them intertwined, but it's really ultimately at the personal level how they take effect. The community of the USA (or MA, in this case) doesn't usually compel one to agree, in conscience, with any of it's definitions, no matter which part (income tax, drug policy, slavery, etc.). Instead, you can decide that one of your communities definitions no longer applies, while still retaining your other communities' definitions. The most the government is making you do (as a matter of conscience) is to choose whether to continuing using it's definition as a part of yours. But you'll still have your church's (both local and general) and your own personal definitions, and any others you hold.
-Bok
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The real question is, "does a same-sex marriage ban violate the rights of homosexuals?" If it doesn't, then that's a legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, if it does, then that's a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage.
See, and I'd say the real issue is how to balance the implied right of same-sex couples to marry against the implied right to live in a society BB is comfortable with (using the vegan table analogy).
We talk about absolute rights, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, but these rights are always balanced against other rights, like guarantee of safety in your persons and possessions. So when the two collide, like say in a human-sacrifice religion, one of the rights loses out. So I think BB's argument is valid in the sense that s/he sees there is a cost, personally and societally, paid in the compromise of other rights, in order to ensure this one. To say the only issue is whether SSM is a right or not is a bit too simplistic, I think.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Is the right to marry protected in the constitution?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, but the right to equal treatment before the law is.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
We have the right to pursue happiness, but, for me, happiness would include that 1.8 million dollar mansion with the pillars and gardens over in Lake Brandt Estates. But they won't let me have that thing. I kept waving a copy of the constitution, but they know I can't afford a lawyer or an education, so, oh well.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Must work, must post, must work, must post.
Real quick, probably as a parting shot until tomorrow:
Bok-
Not all communities are equal. The political communities to which we belong have the power to put us in jail, deprive us of our property, and any number of other things. I view them as a special case community, and my responsibility to it and its to me as different than, say, mine to my church. I know there's more to your post, but see above must work sentence.
Squick-
I'll try and write later about IRM (inter-racial marriage) if you want. No time now.
(I'm not making excuses; I just didn't want anyone to feel blown off if I never respond. I'm just getting busy is all).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:So I think BB's argument is valid in the sense that s/he sees there is a cost, personally and societally, paid in the compromise of other rights, in order to ensure this one.
That's the thing, though -- I just don't see this cost as significant. Karl's question is apt -- how will BB's life be influenced if Karl marries Chris? The bottom line, for me, is that while it might make BB uncomfortable when he thinks about it, beyond that his life will not be affected in any significant way.
To my mind, if homosexuals are a minority deserving of the same sorts of protections against discrimination as ethnic minorities receive (and here in Canada they are recognized as such), then they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, including the right to marry. Since the right to a heterosexual marriage is meaningless to a homosexual, legalizing same-sex marriage is the appropriate legal solution.
It goes without saying that freedom of religion must be protected; our federal same-sex marriage law states that no religious institution can be forced to solemnize same-sex marriages. However, civil marriage officers -- being employees of the government -- must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
I think this is the right balance.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, but the right to equal treatment before the law is.
There's not currently unequal treatment under the law; I'm not allowed to marry a man (well, if I were to live in one of the other 49 states) and neither is anyone else. We are treated equally.
Sorry, I know I said I was busy, but the "equal treatment under the law" masks a deeper argument about the centrality of homosexuality to a person's character. Now, for real, no more posting.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I'm not allowed to marry a man (well, if I were to live in one of the other 49 states) and neither is anyone else.
I am. And so are about half the people on this forum.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Senoj-- Is the state of MA applying any of those "number of things"? Heck our governor is openly showing contempt for his own state with all that red-state/blue-state nonsense, in front of conservative think-tank audiences.
Of course not all communities are equal... To the individual. And then, to complicate it more both the communities and the individuals are constantly in flux. They DO things. So it's up to the individual to decide what their new level of responsibility is to that community.
But if you intertwine the legal definition with your religious definition, you are already, in part, putting them at the same level. I'm just saying that the choice exists to reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) one's responsibility. Your religion demands, and you agree with it, high responsibility? That's cool. The governments of this nation, however, do not require such a burden, I would posit.
Oh and I hear you about work.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Senoj, The same argument could be made for interracial marriage. That is, there was no unequal treatment as everyone was able to marry within their own race. The inequality comes from there being couples who fulfill the requirements for this legal relationship being denied it on no grounds other than personal and religious prejudice, which is, in our system, invalid.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Before the day of interracial marriages in America, did the marriage laws expressly forbid them? Or was it simply taboo?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
In all seriousness though, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Just wanted to go ahead and be on record.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Why? And do you mean civil marriage, religious marriage, or both?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Why? And do you mean civil marriage, religious marriage, or both?
Both. I guess I'm just traditional/old fashioned about this one. I just can't get onboard with homosexual marriages.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
So basically for the aesthetics of it, odouls?
-Bok
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Some would say "I find it appaling to watch people eat meat", and your response would be "They have no problem with you not eating it, you seem to be the one with the problem. I would say "Well as a guest I am would rather the host not allow people to this social function who are going to eat meat in front of me" Your response would be "That would be infringing on their rights that every man and woman has" and I would finally say "What about my rights to be in an environment I am comfortable with? When did their rights become more important than mine?
To continue this analogy, we are talking about their right to eat vs. your "right" to live in a world where they don't get to eat.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: So basically for the aesthetics of it, odouls?
How do you mean?
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote: Yet you are telling the Mormons EVERYWHERE they do not have the right to live in a society they feel comfortable with. If you were throwing a vegan social dinner you are in effect saying "Some new people would like to socialize with us but they can't give up the practice of eating meat but they have the right to be here just as much as any of you do. Some would say "I find it appaling to watch people eat meat", and your response would be "They have no problem with you not eating it, you seem to be the one with the problem. I would say "Well as a guest I am would rather the host not allow people to this social function who are going to eat meat in front of me" Your response would be "That would be infringing on their rights that every man and woman has" and I would finally say "What about my rights to be in an environment I am comfortable with? When did their rights become more important than mine?
To continue with this analogy...
I think that the basic principle behind the U.S.A. is that the host (if you accept the host to be the US) is not ALLOWED to throw an exclusively vegan party. A "legal" party would be to allow whoever wanted to to come, and provide a vegan option, and allow the non-vegans to have some milk or a steak if they want one. It is no more appropriate for the vegans to yank the milk-glass away from a meat-eater than it is for the meat-eaters to stuff a pork chop into a vegan's mouth. As long as no one else is harmed by your choice of how you individully (or your group) will eat, you can follow whatever rule you want, but you can't say that another group or person with a different but harmless way of eating is not allowed at the table.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote: quote: So basically for the aesthetics of it, odouls? How do you mean?
The "ick" factor. Do you not like the image in your head when you think about gay sex? That's not a rational, valid reason to deny equal rights. Do you think about your grandparents having sex? I don't. If it bothers you, don't think about it, and make your decision based on what you belive, in a rational, arguable way.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Do you not like the image in your head when you think about gay sex?
The moment I read that sentence is likely the first time I have thought about gay sex.
Don't think of a blue cow.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
To answer your question with honesty, yes, It bothers me when I would see men kissing in public or what have you. But at the same time, I am also bothered by heterosexual couples making out in public, but in a different way.
I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with people being gay. That's the best I can explain it.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
"I love you, but I'm not IN love with you." *SLAP!!*
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
"I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with people being gay. That's the best I can explain it."
I don't have a problem with irrational people, I just have a problem with people being irrational.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with people being gay.
That isn't grounds for banning same-sex marriage, though.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And you know, I'm still wondering how the idea that the outside world allowing gay marriages is going to cause the LDS to give up their fidelity to the order of marriage is anything other than an indication that LDS marriages have some serious problems already.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
My personal feelings aren't ground for banning anything. However, if the majority of people in the U.S.A. share my personal feelings, then it IS grounds for banning same sex marriages in the U.S.A.
I don't think the thread is intended to be about political or legal strategy. I think it's more concerned with the moral and religious implications of a scoiety that chooses to allow, even sanction same sex marriages.
It's giving a forum to the argument that most debates on this topic avoid. Think about how many threads and conversations we've all been involved in during which people respond to somehting with "Oh that's just a religious argument, I dont even want to get into that. Without quoting your 'religion' can you give me a decent reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry?"
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Squicky: That point I understand -- I certainly don't expect people who oppose same-sex marriage to become staunch advocates of it. But there's a difference between saying "I think this is wrong" and saying "I think this should be banned."
Added: odouls, gimmie a few here to read your post carefully. Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I don't have a problem with irrational people, I just have a problem with people being irrational.
Ok that's it, I've had it with Hatrack, I'm hate everyone and I'm going to go live in a cave forever and lash myself hourly with a wet noodle. My very self worth is shattered and I am now little more than a shell of a man, a breathing corpse!
See? Now THAT sounded irrational. when you put that beside "I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with people being gay" It makes the latter sound like ghandi said it Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
I think the idea of cheeze-whiz on ice cream is disgusting. I think the majority of people in the US would agree. Should we ban it?
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: And you know, I'm still wondering how the idea that the outside world allowing gay marriages is going to cause the LDS to give up their fidelity to the order of marriage is anything other than an indication that LDS marriages have some serious problems already.
Many Many MANY marriages have serious problems already. LDS or otherwise.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I think the idea of cheeze-whiz on ice cream is disgusting. I think the majority of people in the US would agree. Should we ban it?
I hope not, I kind of like Ice Cream and cheeze whiz. That having been said, If the 'ice cream/cheeze whiz' thing was already not recognized as a legitimate combination, I certainly would not expect society, law, constitution, God and/or country to change suddenly just because me and a few buddies wanted it to.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:My personal feelings aren't ground for banning anything. However, if the majority of people in the U.S.A. share my personal feelings, then it IS grounds for banning same sex marriages in the U.S.A.
I completely disagree with this statement. It might be grounds for looking at it, but it is certainly not grounds for actually passing a ban.
quote:I don't think the thread is intended to be about political or legal strategy. I think it's more concerned with the moral and religious implications of a scoiety that chooses to allow, even sanction same sex marriages.
It wasn't at the outset, no. It has changed tone since the opening post -- partly because many same-sex marriage advocates view the legal question as the most immediately relevant one, and partly because it isn't really possible to talk about the potential positive or negative consequences of same-sex marriage without talking about arguments for or against it, since the consequences are often brought up as arguments.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I completely disagree with this statement. It might be grounds for looking at it, but it is certainly not grounds for actually passing a ban.
If the majority of people believe it should be banned, and their representatives desire to accurately represent and/or be reelected by their constituents, then yes, I think it is perfect grounds for banning something in a representative democracy.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:If the majority of people believe it should be banned, and their representatives desire to accurately represent and/or be reelected by their constituents, then yes, I think it is perfect grounds for banning something in a representative democracy.
That depends entirely on what laws are already in place, though, and on the relative importance of those laws.
Added: What I mean to say is that the majority opinion is not a sufficient condition for a ban.
[ October 20, 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: If the majority of people believe it should be banned, and their representatives desire to accurately represent and/or be reelected by their constituents, then yes, I think it is perfect grounds for banning something in a representative democracy.
SO when a majority thought that slavery was okay that meant that it was okay?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If the majority of people believe it should be banned, and their representatives desire to accurately represent and/or be reelected by their constituents, then yes, I think it is perfect grounds for banning something in a representative democracy.
The problem with this is that calling the U.S. represntative democracy is incomplete. We are more correctly a rights-based representative democracy. That is to say, majority rules in many cases, but not in ones where individual rights come into play. For example, you can't vote away someone's right to free speech or his right to due process or (as is relevant in this case) his right to equal treatment before the law.
I said this on this same subject on the other thread:
quote:I think that this is one of the problesm with the "Democracy = Freedom" idea that our country pushes. Democracy, on its own, merely replaces tyranny by the strong with tyranny by the majority. That's why there was and is a great conern with securing individual rights and with developing and adhering to a workable public square epistemology. To actually secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for the individual and for a nation, you need to set aside rights for each person that can't be taken away by the majority and a set of guidelines for what arguments are legitimate for employing government force against the will of some of its citizens. The majority of people in a country can vote for the death of one person or a group of people (like in the Missouri Mormon Extermination Order), but, if the system is working, it would avail them nothing. They, even as a majority or a supermajority, do not have that right.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: SO when a majority thought that slavery was okay that meant that it was okay?
HELL NO.
But it did mean that it was allowed by the government.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
NOTHING about slavery was EVER okay.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I was just remarking that to him the idea (not the concrete reality) was ugly to him. I wasn't going to go into whether or not the rationale was valid for the debate.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is the right to marry protected in the constitution?
quote:No, but the right to equal treatment before the law is.
Actually, the right to marry is protected in the Constitution through current jurisprudence on the due process clause. See Loving v. Virginia for one case that makes this clear (striking down bans on racially mixed marriages not only on equal protection grounds but also on substantive due process grounds).
Unfortunately for gay marriage advocates, the jurisprudence is heavily tied to the "fundamental" nature of a right, which is determined in part (fairly large part) by the history of the right's recognition in Anglo-American legal history. This dedication to the history might just be lip service, but Lawrence diverged heavily in this direction in a negative sense (showing there was no historical expectation that sodomy would be banned). So it seems to be lip service that they are willing to take pretty seriously.
So "marriage" as a fundamental right is likely to be defined as between a man and a woman by the Court.
The current state of equal protection jurisprudence is unlikely to help much either. There are two grounds. One is discrimination in the protection of a fundamental right. If marriage as a fundamental right is restricted to man-woman relationships, this doesn't help. The other ground would be gender discrimination. It's unclear that this would be recognized as gender discrimination by this court. Even if it were, though, the scrutiny it receives is an intermediate level, not a strict level.
One of the rationales underlying Loving was that racial distinctions require strict scrutiny. Since gender distinctions do not, and since the court has repeatedly held that biological reproductive differences can justify unqeual treatment of men and women, I doubt the court would find a federal right to same sex marriage.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I was just remarking that to him the idea (not the concrete reality) was ugly to him. I wasn't going to go into whether or not the rationale was valid for the debate.
See what you started Bok?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SO when a majority thought that slavery was okay that meant that it was okay? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELL NO.
But it did mean that it was allowed by the government.
Yes it was and we agree that it was bad. Right? So can we agree that it is sometimes bad for the government to decide what is legal based merely on majority opinion?
Small steps - or you could just read MrSquicky's posts. He has it well in hand.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Nuh-uh! You totally started it first with your flippant little "wedding" comment!!
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, the interesting thing, I believe, is that MA had an equal protection amendment to the state constitution that was much more strongly worded than the federal one's. Have you read Goodridge? Do you agree, that within the bounds of the MA state constitution, they weren't completely off-base?
-Bok
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
odouls-
Just got back from class, (which is why I only had time to snark; sorry about that) and I want a little clarification. What do you mean by
quote: I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with people being gay
I seriously don't understand. Do you mean you don't have a problem with gay people as long as they repress and act straight? You like some people who happen to be gay, but you have a problem with homosexuality on principle? Enlighten me.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, in federal U.S. law, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race or gender? From your post it appears that it is not.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
I fail to see how the ideals of man-woman marriage don't apply to homosexuals who want to spend the rest of their monogamous lives together, raise a family, etc. etc.
The author is also failing to address the vast number of men and women who fail at marriage, because they don't adhere to those ideals. Allowing gays to marry is not going to break society's traditional marriage ideals- *they're already broken*, which makes this entire essay look like one big excuse. With the author's logic, we should disallow young people, fresh out of highschool, to marry- since chances are they won't stick to those subjective ideals.
Yes, I mean subjective. I'm a fan of the ideals he presented- it makes for one big, happy home. But we cannot deny a group of people the right to marry one another simply because we "don't think they'll hold our values dear." (Emphasis on the word "think." There is no evidence that gay marriage will be more or less moral than the average heterosexual union.)
As for explaining the differences of men and women- the qualities they posess that allow them to come together like yin and yang- many gay people do not adhere to the traditional gender roles set forth by society. A gay man may adopt a personality and behavior similar to a woman's because it fits him. But that's beside the point- unlike the author, we shouldn't insist on traditional gender roles to strengthen marriage. Part of the reason why marriage is crumbling is because women and men aren't subjected to the same strict gender boundaries they were in the 1950's. Unless he's implying we should go back to where men had the full financial burden and women stayed home with the kids and cleaned... in that case, he does appear to be ignorant.
Then he speaks of "transformation," which makes his entire essay sound incredibly hypocritical. The fact that two people, in our progressive society, can be liberated of duties pertaining to their gender, and can still come together and live up to those marriage ideals, is transformation at it's most amazing!!
What I'm reading here is someone who is putting an intellectual slant (he's speaking more eloquently) on why he doesn't believe gays should marry. But the arguments are all the same, and they never don't add up. Yes, we will lose a tradition if we allow gay marriage- but that tradition is already being lost, and for reasons both good and bad. (Like I mentioned before, men and women are no longer subjecting themselves to gender roles that stifle their choices.) While the gay community certainly has a role in this, unless you're a fundamentalist then there is no problem. Actually, the fact that gays WANT to engage in a traditional marriage with one another, one that the author considers moral and good, should be embraced and accepted.
No, the reason the author has a problem with it is because God says being gay is a sin. He should just 'fess up now.
~M
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: I seriously don't understand. Do you mean you don't have a problem with gay people as long as they repress and act straight?
Not at all. You brought up the "ick" factor. I guess that's got something to do with it. If I'm spending time with someone, and they're gay, I usually completely forget the fact that they are gay. Until they kiss their same-sex partner. Then the "ick" factor kicks in and reminds that there is a part of their choices that I disapprove of. When the one is not present, neither is the other, and I yet again forget that they are gay.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well ,the essay IS one big excuse. The author admits to be bolstering the defenses, not criticizing the opponents.
twinky; no, sexual orientation is not enumerated in the US constitution as an explicit equal protection category. Considering it hasn't been amended in ages (60s, right?), it isn't too surprising that sexual orientation didn't make the list. We were still electroshocking a lot of gays into straighthood back then.
-Bok
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Is there a reason for the disapproval, or is it just "there"?
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, in federal U.S. law, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race or gender? From your post it appears that it is not.
No, it is not. For example, it is constitutional to have statutory rape laws that are different for male and female minors. It would be absolutely unconsititonal to base punishemnt on race.
In technical terms, any racial classification in law receives strict scrutiny, any gender classification receives intermediate scrutiny.
Edit: See correction below.
[ October 20, 2005, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay. Thanks. Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
"I usually completely forget the fact that they are gay. Until they kiss their same-sex partner. Then the "ick" factor kicks in and reminds that there is a part of their choices that I disapprove of."
So what you're saying is that you only mind gay people when they don't pretend they're straight. That's what I'm hearing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for your post, Mariann. Good job.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Thanks for your post, Mariann. Good job.
You're welcome. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Bok, in the 1960s we were imprisoning homosexuals here in Canada, but in 1996 the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to include sexual orientation:
quote:For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I just realized I misread your question, twinky.
Racial classification is treated with more suspicion than gender classification.
As of now, a classification on sexual orientation is not inherently suspect, which means it must pass what is called "rational basis" analysis: is it reasonably related to a legitimate end of government.
That's assuming we're not talking about a fundamental right such as free speech. A law banning gay pride parades would be subject to strict scrutiny not based on sexual orientation but on the exercise of a fundamental right.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Yes, well, the last time we amended our constitution to expand equal rights was well before the 60s.
-Bok
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Wow. I really don't get the 'ick' factor at all. I'm a straight woman, a happy, life-long monogamist at this point, and I don't see it. I think I'd be a little bit put off if any of my friends started making out in front of me, but a chaste smooch or sitting close or whatever... no. Not even if they were a gay couple.
But then, I'm probably as close to being a gay man as a straight woman can get *snort* I mean, I totally understand what it is like to be attracted to men, and there is very little that homosexuals do in bed that heterosexuals don't do, too. I can't think of anything, actually.
I don't think the "ick" factor exists in my personal reality, outside of underage or non-consentual issues, neither of which is gay/straight specific.
This is an interesting discussion. It brings new meaning to the phrase, "Same planet, different worlds."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I just realized I misread your question, twinky.
Well, yes and no. You didn't answer the question I meant to ask, but at the same time your answer was useful. I hadn't been thinking about the multiple meanings of "discriminate." Thanks for the supplementary answer.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: So what you're saying is that you only mind gay people when they don't pretend they're straight. That's what I'm hearing
Then you're hearing things that aren't being said.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: There's also the difference that in baptism for the dead, you are doing it to the people who are bothered by it, whereas gay marriage you're bothered because other people are doing something which doesn't directly affect you.
quote:We are working on all of the other things that are attacking the institution of marriage.
I'm gonna call shenanigans on this. The vast majority of the "Defense of Marriage" movement is not only solely focued on anti-gay stuff, but is being carried out by religious groups that have around the highest divorce and spousal and child abuse rates in the country edit: as per ratings on religious status). Even if gay marriage were a threat to marriage, which I haven't seen anyone offer an actual tenable case for or predictions of how it would destroy marriage, it is hardly anywhere near the biggest threat. And yet it has by far the most energy expended on it.
quote:On our side, we believe that same-sex marriage ... will lead to the tribulations prophesied of in the scriptures. As we really do believe that, all of these changes are very alarming.
You may believe that, but I've get the feeling from the many conversations that I've had with people on this board that most of your co-religionists here would not agree with you.
Wow, I go home from school and three pages pop up.
I'm not referring to DOMA when I'm referring to supporting marriage, but rather the LDS Church.
While some of my co-religionists may not agree with me, that was a paraphrase from the Declaration on the Family, straight from the leaders of our church.
I don't really see anything in this article that is meant to convince people outside of the Church.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: The vast majority of the "Defense of Marriage" movement is not only solely focued on anti-gay stuff, but is being carried out by religious groups that have around the highest divorce and spousal and child abuse rates in the country edit: as per ratings on religious status)
Where is this information compiled?
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Well ,the essay IS one big excuse. The author admits to be bolstering the defenses, not criticizing the opponents.
It's an excuse to be against gay marriage when really, he just views homosexuality as a sin. But that's never a good argument, is it?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote: So what you're saying is that you only mind gay people when they don't pretend they're straight. That's what I'm hearing
Then you're hearing things that aren't being said.
How is that not being said?
You just said that you have no problem hanging out with a gay person as long as he's not "doing something gay."
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
In fairness to the article, it was openly and intentionally "preaching to the choir."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Mariann, that's not the point of the article. I don't think, as outsiders, when the thread didn't really invite it, that it's wise to get rabid. No one was really asking to refute it. I admit to posting my problems with it, and I think I've learned a little more about people who think differently.
That's the most fruitful result one can take from just about any Hatrack discussion.
-Bok
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
tern, may I suggest putting this question at www.nauvoo.com if you want for mostly mormons to answer. As you can see, you aren't going to get that group answering around here. MOST of the mostly are not LDS who are answering.
I lost interest as soon as it became a legal rather than religious question. I lost all interest as soon as it was 60 percent non-Mormons who were mostly pro-gay.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: tern, may I suggest putting this question at www.nauvoo.com if you want for mostly mormons to answer.
Don't do this if you aren't a Mormon yourself, however, as posting as a non-Mormon specifically violates the TOS over there.
BTW, Occasional, what makes a thread more interesting when you agree with it? Me, I tend to go the exact opposite way; I get much less interested in a thread when everyone in it agrees with me.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I am a Mormon, but I didn't post this question...I'm just replying.
I rather doubt that this thread or that article will change anyone's minds. Pretty much every thread about SSM is pretty much the same, those against it saying that it will destroy the fabric of society, etc, those for it saying that we're homophobes, etc. However, I did appreciate the posting of the link to that article, seeing as I'm in the choir, it's nice to see some good music as opposed to the JKP junk that we're usually given to sing.
Has there ever been a thread on Hatrack about Mormon composers with three names and how they should never be allowed to put pen to paper?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
JKP?
I don't think folks that are against gay marriage are being homophobic just... afraid of too much of a radical shift and of what they value being taken for granted and folks being too casual about it. But, I can't help thinking that the gays who work for gay marriage will try to value their vows and connects as much as concerned straight people. Then you have gays who dislike the concept of gay marriage for their own complicated reasons. Rebeliousness? The desire to not be like straight people? I think it should be allowed, but I cannot find a clear and convincing argument that will sooth those that disagree with gay marriage on both sides.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: those for it saying that we're homophobes
What's odd is that this thread seems to specifically refute the very claim you make. Has anyone called anyone else homophobic on this thread?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
That's why I put the "etc"...but I was referring to the sum total of all threads about SSM/homosexual behavior. There have been different arguments on both sides...but for some reason, even if a minority uses it, that's the one that tends to stick in the memory.
JKP = Janice Kapp Perry.
Edited for clarity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I thought it might be something like that, but I'm working to change the perception of the pro-SSM camp. The primary argument for SSM is not that people who oppose SSM are homophobes; arguments against a position's opposition are not arguments for the position. (In fact, I often find that people have a tendency, when asked to list the other side's arguments, to list negative, ad hominem arguments of exactly this sort instead of positive arguments for the opposing position itself. Part of it is probably that these ad hominems, precisely because they're insulting, are better remembered by their targets -- and part of it is that people who understand the positive arguments for a position are more likely to actually endorse that position.)
I think a better restatement of the positive arguments for each side would be as follows:
Anti-SSM: it would destroy the fabric of society by undermining the family unit and angering God Pro-SSM: it would grant social respectability and legal protections to homosexual relationships
And when you put it that way, you realize that the two sides actually AGREE. It's just that the anti-SSM crowd believes that granting social respectability to homosexuality would destroy the fabric of society. And that's something worth having a conversation about, IMO.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was actually considering tackling this more from a religious perspective, but I hadn't had time to read the piece thoroughly until now. But Occ's no doubt waiting breathlessly for what I have to say from this angle, so I won't keep him waiting any longer.
One of the stereotypes that seems to be pushed by a lot of people in the anti-gay marriage camp is that the pro-gay marriage people don't value marriage or families. This is not true for the majority of people that I know. Certainly it isn't true for myself.
So, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what was said in the first half of that piece. For example:
quote:the variant versions of the traditional married way of life share the same core elements. These elements have to do with lifelong commitment, mutual trust, sexual fidelity, collaborative rearing of children, and the selflessness and sacrifices required in order to live up to the expectations of the traditional married way of life.
and
quote:But the ideals of traditional marriage that I just listed are elevating and ennobling, and meant to lift the marriage partners above the often petty and self-protective ways of ordinary life.
I also agree with the idea that a commitment to this way of life should go along with the legal institution.
I mostly agree with the four points that the author lists as the basis for marriage.
Traditional marriage is rooted in a covenant made with God, or in good conscience.
The traditional marriage partners covenant to become as one.
It is with one’s natural complement that the covenant is made.
The covenant includes rearing a posterity together.
I don't actually accept the raising of posterity as a necessary basis for marriage, but I do agree that it is very important as to the basis of marriage nonetheless. And I agree with the idea that one of the highest callings of marriage is to rear children collaboratively in such as way that the parents' unity and commitement will become a model for their children to aspire to.
I'm all over part 3. Like a Temple in the Profane World. The family as a stable, working, healthy thing is so precious and necessary for a working society. I'd quote almost that whole section as stuff I agree with if I weren't concerned about copyright.
And then my agreement breaks down. If you were following the piece closely, you will have already noticed the lines of fracture contained in the parts I left out of what I agreed with.
One of the cornerstone assumptions of this piece seems to be the assertion that one's sex is the most determining, fundamental aspect of who you are and that only true completeness someone can have is with someone of the opposite sex. While I could see this making sense to someone coming from a strongly sex-typed culture like LDS, I don't think this holds up in a world where people aren't actively working to make it true. I'm not going to deny that the distribution of traits and ways of thinking are distributed in different proportions across the sexes, but I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with personality traits or ways of thinking that could be classified as exclusively male or female. Certainly I don't think you'd be able to come up with anywhere near enough such that you could claim that this difference towers over all others.
I'm an engineer. I think more similarly to engineers, male or female, than I do to say Art History people, male of female. I'm also a social scientist. The pool of people who are both engineers and social scientists is remarkably small (the Psych GRE is taken by 78% women, 22% men, the only GRE with a higher differential is Comp Sci which is 80% men and 20% women. I do both.) and I find I think most like these rare people who combine the stereotypical "male" traits of engineers and the stereotypical "female" traits of social scientists. Not suprisingly, I know both men and women who are like this. When I went to Penn, I felt out of place because, unlike most of the people there, I came from a blue collar, city background. The two people on my hall I was closest to because we felt most comfortable with each other where two girls from the same environment. I could go on and on, but I think people get the point. In my life, I've found that, yes, there are differences between the sexes, but that these differences are often much less significant than other ones. And I've been described (by a gay friend) as "umistakably straight from 100 yards away.", which I chose to take as a compliment.
I have close gay friends (unlike, I'm willing to bet, the author of this piece). One of the things that I was initially struck by, back when I was fresh out of Catholic high school was how similar our bitching about relationships sound like. I don't see where there's this huge difference between their relationships and mine. We have certainly been able to trade useful advice back and forth.
The ones whose "weddings" I've danced at are devoted to their partners and I've had no reason to doubt their intentions towards "lifelong commitment, mutual trust, sexual fidelity, collaborative rearing of children, and ... selflessness and sacrifices". The one couple that has a beautiful, healthy little girl seem no less into their family than say my adopted friends' parents or my natural parents for that matter. Again, I don't see this apparently obvious and enormous difference. What I do see is pairings of people who are creating, through trial and error, through blending their complementary personalities and strengths and weaknesses, into beautiful things, into "Temples in the Profane World". Like all marriages, especially ones just starting out, they are both precious and fragile and I try to support them as best I can. I don't see how tearing them down helps anyone. Another obvious thing I must be missing.
And let's be clear. Gay marriage is their only shot at a marriage type relationship. It's not like they had a choice between two options. The ex-gay movements only "successes" come from Clockwork Oranging people into some pretty messed up individuals, who are then passed off onto the volunteer husbands and wives who signed up to marry whoever came out the other side of the "therapy" without committing suicide and still basically functional. That doesn't seem like respecting marriage to me, but I must be missing it.
You're not increasing heterosexual marriage by banning gay marriage. You're just making it harder for them and spitting on their selflessness and sacrifices. The realistic alternative you're offering them to their unions where they are growing up and growing together, where they are finding joy and fulfillment, where they're are doing their best to build loving, working families is life alone. No partners, no completion, no families. To me, that's diminshing the things that are right in this world, not increasing them. It's seems to be tearing down marriages and families, not protecting them. But I guess that's another obvious thing I'm missing.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:JKP junk
What is wrong with Janice? What if a relative of hers was on this forum? I've actually *chosen* to sing some of it. But I usually don't choose it. Seriously, I know what you mean. But I wouldn't call her music junk. I don't know what I would call it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Incidently, are there anti-gay marriage essays that aren't terribly disrespectful to parents of adopted children?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes. Many.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How come I never seem to see them posted here?
edit: I mean this one goes out of its way to take a swipe at them. They show up pretty quickly under the Apostasy of Marriage section.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't know.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I wouldn't say that proponents of SSM don't value marriage or families. Well, actually, considering that I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman, I suppose it would be accurate to say that the "marriage" that they value isn't the traditional definition of marriage.
That being said, I don't think that the push for gay marriage has as much to do with whether or not they value marriage or families as it does with a desire to have society legitimize their actions. That's my core problem with their motivations, because I believe that they are misguided. Things are right or wrong regardless of whether or not society legitimizes them, and happiness does not come from having society legitimize their behavior.
So while I truly do believe that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society, I think that those who want to enter into it are doing it out of misguided beliefs.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Mariann, that's not the point of the article. I don't think, as outsiders, when the thread didn't really invite it, that it's wise to get rabid. No one was really asking to refute it. I admit to posting my problems with it, and I think I've learned a little more about people who think differently.
That's the most fruitful result one can take from just about any Hatrack discussion.
-Bok
Sure, no one asked for a refute. But if you're going to post something like that in a public forum where discussion is encouraged, be prepared for some dissent.
And I don't think I was rabid.
~M
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Wow. 4 new pages since last night. Common, I only have time to read at night! I've spent all my time on this one thread!
Card's Songmaster book changed how I viewed gay people.
At Ender's Con OSC "forced" us to listen to Janis Ian, who is lesbian. That changed my views as well.
Do you know, we all could benefit from Peter Wiggin's little Locke and Demosthenes excerise. If I were to take the pro-SSM side, I have no idea what I should say.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: What is wrong with Janice? What if a relative of hers was on this forum?
Hopefully, ask her never, ever, ever, ever compose anything again?
She has done a couple decent songs, I have to admit. But they're greatly outweighed by the manipulative and puerile pap that she generally churns out. Nothing personal, oh ye relatives of JKP who might be reading this...
That's what we ought to do to discourage gay marriage - tell them that we will support the legalization of gay marriage IF they will agree to have Afterglow sing some JKP at the marriage. The next gay marriage will be the last.
Then again, while I disagree with SSM, I don't hate them...so I guess that won't work.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mariann:
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Well ,the essay IS one big excuse. The author admits to be bolstering the defenses, not criticizing the opponents.
It's an excuse to be against gay marriage when really, he just views homosexuality as a sin. But that's never a good argument, is it?
Why isn't it a good argument? Our legal system is based off English Common Law, which in turn is based off the Bible, so many things which are illegal are illegal because they were originally deemed to be sin.
While that illegal may have changed, sin has often been considered to be a solid basis for making things illegal.
Furthermore, I'm not really sure why a belief that homosexuality is a sin makes one's opposition to gay marriage for many reasons (as given in the essay) an excuse.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: So while I truly do believe that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society
I strongly disagree with this. Is allowing gay marriage worse than all the porn on the internet now? Worse than child porn, which IS illegal?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
English common law is not based off the Bible, its heritage predates the spread of Catholic influence in England (or even the existence of Christianity).
English common law is based off of tribal law, which was supplanted by religious and secular nationalist institutions on mainland Europe.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: Do you know, we all could benefit from Peter Wiggin's little Locke and Demosthenes excerise. If I were to take the pro-SSM side, I have no idea what I should say.
What are the points that I would emphasize if I were to bring up the pro-SSM side?
Homosexuals are discriminated against by not allowing them to marry those they love.
As homosexuals will value the institution of marriage, allowing them to marry will strengthen society.
Opposition to homosexuality and same sex marriage is based upon religious views, and the Constitution prohibits the imposition of religious views upon society.
We should be tolerant of everyone, especially those whose views we greatly disagree with.
It won't hurt anything to allow homosexuals to marry.
Of course, having set these straw men up, I shall now proceed to knock them down:
Who said marriage has anything to do with love?
If homosexuals valued the institution of marriage, then they would agree with the traditional definition of marriage. It is that they do not value the traditional definition of marriage that causes them to want to redefine it. I can say that I believe in oranges, but that "orange" should really mean "apple".
No, the despite the efforts of the Anti-Christian-Liberties Union, the Constitution does not require the disenfranchisement of people with religious views, each of whom has the same right as anyone else to impose their values on society.
This one is generally brought up by people who are intolerant of the anti-SSM view. In defense of both, however, why should we be tolerant of things that we believe have a negative effect? We have a responsibility to fight for what we believe is right.
Said completely without any backup.
There are other arguments for SSM, and I'm sure that those for SSM would view my arguments against it as being insufficient...but really, we're not going to convince each other at this stage of the game, are we?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
tern,
quote:while I truly do believe that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society
See, this is one of the many things that just aren't clear to me. How is this destruction going to happen? It seemed to me that this essay pretty much glossed over it. It was like, we'll allow people who don't have this insurmountable male-female complimenting get married and then fast forward a bit and suddenly no one values marriage or believes that it is a serious commitment and it's all about selfishness and men and women will ignore their obvious differences and no one will want to have children.
I don't see how this will happen. I strongly value marriage and all that he claims will be lost. So do the gay people I know who want to get married. They're not the ones bringing this disrespect to commitment and children and family. They yearn for commitment and children and families. I support their desire to get married and I don't find myself less committed to it as a serious institution myself. If it's not coming from me and it's not coming from them, who is it coming from?
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by human_2.0:
quote:Originally posted by tern: So while I truly do believe that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society
I strongly disagree with this. Is allowing gay marriage worse than all the porn on the internet now? Worse than child porn, which IS illegal?
Is it? Possibly. Again, however, this is a shell game. They're all bad. Which one is worse, is up to debate, but they should all be opposed.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: English common law is not based off the Bible, its heritage predates the spread of Catholic influence in England (or even the existence of Christianity).
English common law is based off of tribal law, which was supplanted by religious and secular nationalist institutions on mainland Europe.
I believe that my law professor and you will have to cordially disagree. Furthermore, there is a vast difference between Common Law countries (such as ourselves and England) and the legal systems in mainland Europe.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: [QUOTE]Why isn't it a good argument? Our legal system is based off English Common Law, which in turn is based off the Bible, so many things which are illegal are illegal because they were originally deemed to be sin.
While that illegal may have changed, sin has often been considered to be a solid basis for making things illegal.
Furthermore, I'm not really sure why a belief that homosexuality is a sin makes one's opposition to gay marriage for many reasons (as given in the essay) an excuse.
What are you saying- that we should allows our religious convictions to sway our decision-making, regardless of it's illogic?
As for the author's "other reasons", I already explained why his reasoning is flawed. Besides, if he didn't believe that something was inherently wrong with homosexuality, then why insist that same-sex marriage will destroy the ideals of a traditional marriage? Let's face it- the author's convictions are rooted in his belief that gays are sinners.
~M
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: What are you saying- that we should allows our religious convictions to sway our decision-making, regardless of it's illogic?
As for the author's "other reasons", I already explained why his reasoning is flawed. Besides, if he didn't believe that something was inherently wrong with homosexuality, then why insist that same-sex marriage will destroy the ideals of a traditional marriage? Let's face it- the author's convictions are rooted in his belief that gays are sinners.
I believe that my religious convictions are logical.
Second, while the author likely believes that something is inherently wrong with homosexuality, it doesn't take that to decide that same-sex marriage will destroy the idea of a traditional marriage. See previous post about apples and oranges.
Lastly, let's face it - if the author's convictions are rooted solely in his belief that homosexual behavior is a sin, what's wrong with that? Is not everyone entitled to their own beliefs and to work to mold society according to their ideas? That's what the proponents of SSM are doing, after all...
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: See, this is one of the many things that just aren't clear to me. How is this destruction going to happen?
My belief is that society is to some extent based upon contracts, most importantly the marriage contract. When people are less committed to the traditional idea of marriage, then the fabric of society suffers. See how the rise in illegitimacy leads to the rise in the crime rate.
Now, I don't know how exactly the redefinition of marriage will affect society. I rather doubt that when people decided to remove the social stigma from having children out of wedlock that they knew that it would cause a sharp rise in crime. However, I don't have the burning desire to find out - or even the passive desire to let it happen.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But as I said, I'm not less committed to marriage. The gay people I know who want to get married aren't less committed to marriage. So where is this disrespect for it that you the author of this essay see flowing from it so obviously coming from?
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern: Is not everyone entitled to their own beliefs and to work to mold society according to their ideas? That's what the proponents of SSM are doing, after all...
I use myself as an example. I could never have an abortion, because to me it is morally wrong. But I understand that that conviction is entirely subjective- it's not based on any real logic, so if I were to vote on the subject I would vote for full legalization of abortion.
It's one thing to believe strongly in something, it's quite another to inflict entirely subjective beliefs on other people, while putting a pseudo-intellectual slant on it, such as the author of the essay did.
~M
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But as I said, I'm not less committed to marriage. The gay people I know who want to get married aren't less committed to marriage. So where is this disrespect for it that you the author of this essay see flowing from it so obviously coming from?
From what I've observed, gays who wish to marry each other show no less disrespect toward traditional ideals than a "normal" couple. In fact, I would think a gay couple who wants to marry each other, adopt children, etc. would hold even greater values toward marriage- why else would they fight tooth and nail for it?
~M
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But as I said, I'm not less committed to marriage. The gay people I know who want to get married aren't less committed to marriage. So where is this disrespect for it that you the author of this essay see flowing from it so obviously coming from?
I'm not the author of the essay. I believe that he would be able to make his case better than I can.
Here is the disrespect: The traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Proponents of SSM want to redefine it so that it is no longer just between a man and a woman. If they respected it, they would not want to change it. Now, I agree that they likely respect some parts of marriage, but they prima facie do not respect the traditional definition of marriage.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mariann:
quote:Originally posted by tern: Is not everyone entitled to their own beliefs and to work to mold society according to their ideas? That's what the proponents of SSM are doing, after all...
I use myself as an example. I could never have an abortion, because to me it is morally wrong. But I understand that that conviction is entirely subjective- it's not based on any real logic, so if I were to vote on the subject I would vote for full legalization of abortion.
It's one thing to believe strongly in something, it's quite another to inflict entirely subjective beliefs on other people, while putting a pseudo-intellectual slant on it, such as the author of the essay did.
~M
Is conviction always subjective? Can you prove that it is not based upon "real logic"?
Furthermore, do you understand that people who have the "subjective" view that SSM is good are also inflicting their views on other people, many of whom put what opponents of SSM would label a "pseudointellectual slant" on it?
This isn't quite as cut-and-dried as you seem to view it. It's not the intolerant God-Botherers "forcing" their views on the poor, oppressed homosexuals. It's two (or more) different groups, who believe in the legitimacy of their own views, trying to mold society in their image. View it from your side, I'm trying to force my views on you. View it from my side, you're trying to force your views on me. However, this paradigm is inherently flawed. It is the right of every individual in a democratic society to try to make their society the way they want it to be. Accusing others of trying to "force" it when this is done by democratic means is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are doing the same thing for their side, and to cast a false pall of illegitimacy on the opposing side.
Simply put, the accusation that my opposition to same-sex marriage for religious reasons is an attempt to "force" my views on you is as incorrect as the accusation that I am a "homophobe" for trying to do so. It is merely an attempt to avoid the core issues of whether or not SSM should be allowed by claiming that opposition to SSM is automatically wrong.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: From what I've observed, gays who wish to marry each other show no less disrespect toward traditional ideals than a "normal" couple. In fact, I would think a gay couple who wants to marry each other, adopt children, etc. would hold even greater values toward marriage- why else would they fight tooth and nail for it?
Why else would they fight? I believe that they fight for it primarily to recieve social and legal legitimization of their practice. Marriage is but one of many facets of this attempt. They want everyone to admit that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: English common law is not based off the Bible, its heritage predates the spread of Catholic influence in England (or even the existence of Christianity).
English common law is based off of tribal law, which was supplanted by religious and secular nationalist institutions on mainland Europe.
I believe that my law professor and you will have to cordially disagree.
And I believe this lawyer will have to cordially disagree with your law professor then.
Are you sure that's what he/she actually said?
quote: the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery), which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of Common Law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute
quote:Originally posted by tern: Is not everyone entitled to their own beliefs and to work to mold society according to their ideas? That's what the proponents of SSM are doing, after all...
I use myself as an example. I could never have an abortion, because to me it is morally wrong. But I understand that that conviction is entirely subjective- it's not based on any real logic, so if I were to vote on the subject I would vote for full legalization of abortion.
It's one thing to believe strongly in something, it's quite another to inflict entirely subjective beliefs on other people, while putting a pseudo-intellectual slant on it, such as the author of the essay did.
~M
Is conviction always subjective? Can you prove that it is not based upon "real logic"?
Furthermore, do you understand that people who have the "subjective" view that SSM is good are also inflicting their views on other people, many of whom put what opponents of SSM would label a "pseudointellectual slant" on it?
This isn't quite as cut-and-dried as you seem to view it. It's not the intolerant God-Botherers "forcing" their views on the poor, oppressed homosexuals. It's two (or more) different groups, who believe in the legitimacy of their own views, trying to mold society in their image. View it from your side, I'm trying to force my views on you. View it from my side, you're trying to force your views on me. However, this paradigm is inherently flawed. It is the right of every individual in a democratic society to try to make their society the way they want it to be. Accusing others of trying to "force" it when this is done by democratic means is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are doing the same thing for their side, and to cast a false pall of illegitimacy on the opposing side.
Simply put, the accusation that my opposition to same-sex marriage for religious reasons is an attempt to "force" my views on you is as incorrect as the accusation that I am a "homophobe" for trying to do so. It is merely an attempt to avoid the core issues of whether or not SSM should be allowed by claiming that opposition to SSM is automatically wrong.
I think we can all safely agree that faith-based opinions are far more subjective than, say, morals derived from cold, hard facts. Those facts being that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, and there is nothing wrong with gay marriages. Until those who are against same-sex marriages can come up with a logical reason stating otherwise, then I refuse to accept their stance on the issue. "Because the Bible says it's a sin", and "Because we like marriage the way it is" *are not viable arguments.* They're easily debunked by anyone.
As for advocates for same-sex marriages being just as subjective, do give examples. Because as far as I can see, I don't gain or lose anything from allowing gays to marry. *That's* an unbiased perspective for you.
~M
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern:
quote: From what I've observed, gays who wish to marry each other show no less disrespect toward traditional ideals than a "normal" couple. In fact, I would think a gay couple who wants to marry each other, adopt children, etc. would hold even greater values toward marriage- why else would they fight tooth and nail for it?
Why else would they fight? I believe that they fight for it primarily to recieve social and legal legitimization of their practice. Marriage is but one of many facets of this attempt. They want everyone to admit that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Many want acceptance because they *are* normal couples, who are enjoying the traditional ideals of family and monogamy- but due to intolerance (yes, intolerance for homosexuality, intolerance for progression- the anti-tradition) they are not being recognized as being a normal couple.
~M
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I will have to rephrase that, as I was not careful enough in my wording. Specifically, my understanding of what my law professor said is that common law was influenced by the Bible. I will also add a disclaimer that he did not state how heavily it was influenced by the Bible, and that this was a comment in passing.
I found that same quote on law.com when I was looking up to see if I was full of it in regards to that reference. Looks like I was, so I retract that comment, with apologies. I'm just a 1L, so any of my comments about law that seem authoritative should be taken with the understanding that where I'm at, I'm still repeating "duty, breach, causation, damages" every night.
However, I still stand by my point that many laws have been created in order to make certain sins illegal. I think that's why the sodomy statutes were on the books until recently.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: Many want acceptance because they *are* normal couples, who are enjoying the traditional ideals of family and monogamy- but due to intolerance (yes, intolerance for homosexuality, intolerance for progression- the anti-tradition) they are not being recognized as being a normal couple.
And I would argue that they by definition are *not* normal couples, a normal couple being a male and a female.
Again, you raise the intolerance argument. How should I take this ad hominum logic? Should I point out that claiming that my views are intolerant and thus invalid is merely a way to avoid discussing the merits of SSM by attacking the standing of anyone who would dare oppose it? Or should I point out that your definition of intolerance is in itself intolerant? Or should I point out that your claim of that I am intolerant is pointless, because whether I am right (or wrong) is completely independent of whether or not I am intolerant. Lastly, should I point out that intolerance is not necessarily wrong? I don't tolerate pedophilia, either. For the record, I do recognize the difference, especially in degree, between homosexual behavior and pedophilia.
Intolerance of progression? Can I ask you, just what the heck are we "progressing" to? So-called "Progressives" try to invoke the name of "progress" to get support for their changes, but in my opinion, it is not "progress" that they are after, but "change", which can be either good or bad. What would you say if I told you that I believe that I am a "Progressive", too, but my definition of progress is a world that is more in tune with God? Hey, it's progress, right? Furthermore, considering the influence that "progressives" have had on our country over the last 100 years, one would expect us to be in an utopia, but adjusting for technology, are things better now than 100 years ago? Tell ya what, I have three locks on my door which I keep locked even when I'm at home, and when I drive through my neighborhood, I have to keep my eyes down so I don't get jumped. Some progress.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Why isn't it a good argument?
*waves hand* I know! I know! Call on me!
quote: Our legal system is based off English Common Law, which in turn is based off the Bible, so many things which are illegal are illegal because they were originally deemed to be sin.
While that illegal may have changed, sin has often been considered to be a solid basis for making things illegal.
Because it's an argument devoid of facts and logic that relies solely on appeal to authority and circular logic? In other words, no argument at all?
quote: My belief is that society is to some extent based upon contracts, most importantly the marriage contract. When people are less committed to the traditional idea of marriage, then the fabric of society suffers. See how the rise in illegitimacy leads to the rise in the crime rate.
This statement is not born out in comparisons of divorce rate/crime rate around the world. I know you said 'illegitimacy', but what does that mean?
quote: This isn't quite as cut-and-dried as you seem to view it. It's not the intolerant God-Botherers "forcing" their views on the poor, oppressed homosexuals. It's two (or more) different groups, who believe in the legitimacy of their own views, trying to mold society in their image. View it from your side, I'm trying to force my views on you. View it from my side, you're trying to force your views on me. However, this paradigm is inherently flawed. It is the right of every individual in a democratic society to try to make their society the way they want it to be. Accusing others of trying to "force" it when this is done by democratic means is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are doing the same thing for their side, and to cast a false pall of illegitimacy on the opposing side.
They are not the same thing at all. If I outlawed Mormonism and said that only Catholicism was legal in the U.S., I think it's clear that that is quite different from saying that Mormonism and Catholicism can co-exist.
If I say that I say that only my house can stand, and your house must be bulldozed, that is different than saying that both can stand.
In the former instances of the two examples, one side is forced to give up something, or is not allowed to do something, while the other side is not affected materially at all. Big difference in the two outcomes, and trying to say that both are the same is, I'm sorry to say, inaccurate.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote: I think we can all safely agree that faith-based opinions are far more subjective than, say, morals derived from cold, hard facts. Those facts being that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, and there is nothing wrong with gay marriages. Until those who are against same-sex marriages can come up with a logical reason stating otherwise, then I refuse to accept their stance on the issue. "Because the Bible says it's a sin", and "Because we like marriage the way it is" *are not viable arguments.* They're easily debunked by anyone.
As for advocates for same-sex marriages being just as subjective, do give examples. Because as far as I can see, I don't gain or lose anything from allowing gays to marry. *That's* an unbiased perspective for you.
Much of what you believe are "cold, hard facts" are things which I believe subjective. That is not a "safe agreement." How were these facts gathered? How did the bias of the scientist or other fact-gathered affect the result? How truthful were they? Were they merely running tests to get the results that they wanted? If you are taking the scientists and sociologists at their word, then you are operating on faith just like I am with the scriptures. Now I believe that a lot of science is true, but I don't delude myself into thinking that I know for sure it's true. I don't understand everything in science (well, nobody does) and probably a lot of it is beyond me, even though I am highly educated.
The argument that the Bible says it is a sin is not debunkable by anyone. If you believe that the Bible says it's a sin, and you believe that the Bible is the most important source, than that clinches it for you. Nothing anyone else can say will "debunk" it for you. If you don't believe this, then it doesn't need "debunking", does it?
Speaking of logic and cold, hard facts, I do hope that you have something better than "as far as I can see, you don't gain or lose anything". How far can you see? How well? Unbiased? Yes. Ignorant? Possibly.
Why would you support it if you don't gain anything? What about other people?
My reasons to oppose it are first, I believe it to be an immoral practice, and second, I believe that it is very likely to have a detrimental impact on our society. And maybe it won't affect me personally - but I have to live here. Now you can't argue the first reason - it's a matter of faith and personal belief, and you don't have to argue it, because you cannot convince me otherwise and I cannot make you believe the same as myself. Now, the second point is open to debate, and I'm sure that you could bring up some good points if you weren't so focused on denying the legitimacy of the opponents of SSM. I will say this, however - from my perspective, it looks like eventually SSM will become the law of the land. At that point, we will then see whether or not it will have good effects or bad effects. And if it does have bad effects, then media and the intelligentsia will mostly ignore them, just like they ignore the correlation between crime and illegitmate birth, and the correlation between extramarital sex and the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases.
It seems to me that you believe that the opinions of religious people are inherently inferior because they are influenced by scriptures. Well, you are entitled to your beliefs. As am I. And short of disenfranchising me, you cannot stop my participation in the political process nor that of those who believe like me. You cannot separate my religious views and myself.
Aargh, I just realized that it is 2 am...I had really intended to waste my study time playing video games, instead of getting sucked into this discussion. Oh well, good practice, I suppose. G'night all.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern:
quote: See, this is one of the many things that just aren't clear to me. How is this destruction going to happen?
My belief is that society is to some extent based upon contracts, most importantly the marriage contract. When people are less committed to the traditional idea of marriage, then the fabric of society suffers. See how the rise in illegitimacy leads to the rise in the crime rate.
Now, I don't know how exactly the redefinition of marriage will affect society. I rather doubt that when people decided to remove the social stigma from having children out of wedlock that they knew that it would cause a sharp rise in crime. However, I don't have the burning desire to find out - or even the passive desire to let it happen.
First of all, the "social stigma" of having children out of wedlock wasn't a law. We didn't change legislation to remove it. And having it there wasn't stopping people from having premarital sex, anyway.
Secondly, until very recently in some states (Louisiana in particular) it was "tradition" that women could not own property in their marriages. Someone changed that law. Gasp! Clearly, the fabric of society is deteriorating, since the nature of the "traditional marriage" has been altered!
"Traditional marriages" have also in the past been only within one's own race. Only within one's own social class. Only saw the wife as the bearer of children.
Has changing that been so horrible for society as a whole? Has the sky fallen? Have we regressed into lawlessness?
-pH
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern:
quote: Many want acceptance because they *are* normal couples, who are enjoying the traditional ideals of family and monogamy- but due to intolerance (yes, intolerance for homosexuality, intolerance for progression- the anti-tradition) they are not being recognized as being a normal couple.
And I would argue that they by definition are *not* normal couples, a normal couple being a male and a female.
Again, you raise the intolerance argument. How should I take this ad hominum logic? Should I point out that claiming that my views are intolerant and thus invalid is merely a way to avoid discussing the merits of SSM by attacking the standing of anyone who would dare oppose it? Or should I point out that your definition of intolerance is in itself intolerant? Or should I point out that your claim of that I am intolerant is pointless, because whether I am right (or wrong) is completely independent of whether or not I am intolerant. Lastly, should I point out that intolerance is not necessarily wrong? I don't tolerate pedophilia, either. For the record, I do recognize the difference, especially in degree, between homosexual behavior and pedophilia.
Intolerance of progression? Can I ask you, just what the heck are we "progressing" to? So-called "Progressives" try to invoke the name of "progress" to get support for their changes, but in my opinion, it is not "progress" that they are after, but "change", which can be either good or bad. What would you say if I told you that I believe that I am a "Progressive", too, but my definition of progress is a world that is more in tune with God? Hey, it's progress, right? Furthermore, considering the influence that "progressives" have had on our country over the last 100 years, one would expect us to be in an utopia, but adjusting for technology, are things better now than 100 years ago? Tell ya what, I have three locks on my door which I keep locked even when I'm at home, and when I drive through my neighborhood, I have to keep my eyes down so I don't get jumped. Some progress.
I'm avoiding the discussion? I'm not the one asking redundant questions regarding hypocritical intolerance, am I? If your views on homosexuality and gay marriage aren't based on intolerance then please enlighten me. I'm finding it increasingly tiresome that while you continue to defend your beliefs, you have yet to come up with any arguments against what I've posed. Nobody here has so much as responded to the points made in my original comment.
People who support same-sex marriages are progressing toward a society that embraces all people as equals, regardless of their sexual orientation. It's not a difficult concept.
~M
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'd like to see the connection between same sex marriage and "I might get jumped in my own neighborhood."
Oh, wait. That must be all the illegitimate kids. And they definitely wouldn't exist if we made it socially unacceptable to have children outside of wedlock, making single mothers feel as though they have even fewer resources available to them.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mariann: I'm not the one asking redundant questions regarding hypocritical intolerance, am I?
Yes.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by tern:
The argument that the Bible says it is a sin is not debunkable by anyone. If you believe that the Bible says it's a sin, and you believe that the Bible is the most important source, than that clinches it for you. Nothing anyone else can say will "debunk" it for you. If you don't believe this, then it doesn't need "debunking", does it?
Speaking of logic and cold, hard facts, I do hope that you have something better than "as far as I can see, you don't gain or lose anything". How far can you see? How well? Unbiased? Yes. Ignorant? Possibly.
Why would you support it if you don't gain anything? What about other people?
My reasons to oppose it are first, I believe it to be an immoral practice, and second, I believe that it is very likely to have a detrimental impact on our society. And maybe it won't affect me personally - but I have to live here. Now you can't argue the first reason - it's a matter of faith and personal belief, and you don't have to argue it, because you cannot convince me otherwise and I cannot make you believe the same as myself. Now, the second point is open to debate, and I'm sure that you could bring up some good points if you weren't so focused on denying the legitimacy of the opponents of SSM. I will say this, however - from my perspective, it looks like eventually SSM will become the law of the land. At that point, we will then see whether or not it will have good effects or bad effects. And if it does have bad effects, then media and the intelligentsia will mostly ignore them, just like they ignore the correlation between crime and illegitmate birth, and the correlation between extramarital sex and the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases.
It seems to me that you believe that the opinions of religious people are inherently inferior because they are influenced by scriptures. Well, you are entitled to your beliefs. As am I. And short of disenfranchising me, you cannot stop my participation in the political process nor that of those who believe like me. You cannot separate my religious views and myself.
Aargh, I just realized that it is 2 am...I had really intended to waste my study time playing video games, instead of getting sucked into this discussion. Oh well, good practice, I suppose. G'night all. [/QB]
Actually, there are plenty of people who believe that the Bible doesn't oppose homosexuality. Here is a great site that goes into depth the Bible passages that are misinterpreted to fit the anti-gay agenda: http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html
And the fact that your beliefs are faith-based is a strong argument in itself- but I won't get into that. As for same-sex marriages being detrimental- what's the basis for your opinion? That's the kind of discussion I'd like to have.
~M
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: And I would argue that they by definition are *not* normal couples, a normal couple being a male and a female.
I submit that at least part of this discussion is about the fact that many, many people believe that a same-sex couple should be considered a "normal" couple, because the central element of couplehood is the couple itself, not the individual components.
If you want to submit that a marriage is less important than the individuals within it, you can, but frankly that strikes me as a pretty severe devaluation of marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I understand that that conviction is entirely subjective- it's not based on any real logic
Maybe your conviction about abortion being wrong is entirely subjective and not based on any real logic, but my conviction that abortion is wrong is certainly based on real logic.
Several people on this thread seem to not recognize that the disagreements are several layers below gay marriage. Mariann is taking it as a given that a moral tenet based in ones religion is an inadequate basis for the law.
Here's what you need to understand: many, if not most, people in this country disagree with you. The use of law to support a common morality is one of the traditional justifications for law. Although there has been increasing opposition to this notion, many people still hold to it.
Arguing from your premise that common morality is an insufficient justification for a law will not change anyone's mind who doesn't share that premise. And, if you are attempting to convince them to accept your premise, you'll have to do more than post conclusory statements saying, "this premise is good."
There are several arguments in favor of civil gay marriage that do not rely on this premise. If you use them, you may have a shot at changing someone's mind.
If you don't, but rather insist on mocking the beliefs of others for not accepting your premise on what makes good law, you will not change anyone's minds.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm fairly certain that women are STILL the only humans capable of bearing children.
Why has this not changed since the advent of women's rights?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Because the technology does not exist yet that can create an artificial womb. Scientists are working on it, though - both as an infertility treatment and a possible treatment for the severely premature.
They've been testing them on bovine fetuses and the like. *shrug*
Just like SSM, non-uterine fetal development will happen eventually, barring catastrophic destruction of the civilization that supportts advancing technologies. Then the wealthy will be able to have babies without suffering the physical consequences. Lots of people already pay others to do their child-rearing for them. *shrug* Not that I think that is a good thing. It just seems to be the way the ball is rolling.
Someone throws a ball. You watch the parabola and have a good idea where it will be well before it gets there.
Which is probably a big reason why threads like this, so full of acrimony, fail to disturb me. I choose to live in a world where certain things are simply inevitable.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm not the author of the essay. [Smile] I believe that he would be able to make his case better than I can.
Well, he didn't make it in that essay, and, as it's a line that many seem to push as though it was obvious, as he does, I'm hoping someone can fill in the missing steps. As I see it, the entire essay rests on the conclusion that all these terrible things are going to happen to the state of marriage, but I don't see here (nor in any of the other places people have made this assertion) a description of how or why they are going to happen. The only explanation that has been offered, as far as I can see, is that gay people and supporters of gay marriage do not value marriage or the family. But, by and large, that's just not true.
The author made the point that the disrespect was going to be for what he said (and I agreed) were the basic elements of marriage:
quote:lifelong commitment, mutual trust, sexual fidelity, collaborative rearing of children, and the selflessness and sacrifices required in order to live up to the expectations of the traditional married way of life.
but, as you say, you're not him. It still seems to me like you're following the same argument as to how the basis of society will be destroyed and people will not respect the marriage contract, but I guess it must be different. Could you explain how?
quote:Here is the disrespect: The traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Proponents of SSM want to redefine it so that it is no longer just between a man and a woman. If they respected it, they would not want to change it. Now, I agree that they likely respect some parts of marriage, but they prima facie do not respect the traditional definition of marriage.
What you're pointing out (that people would only want to ammend the defintion of marriage if they disrespected "traditional" - by that I'm assuming heterosexual - marriage) doesn't seem to me to be logical or valid. We ammend things all the time, without disrespecting them. The Consitution, for example. I don't find my respect for heterosexual marriage dimished in the slightest because I also respect homosexual marriage. The idea that two people of the same sex should be able to get married in no ways changes the seriousness with which I regard marriage nor my strong desire to get into a committed relationship and raise children (though if any of you all tell the girl I'm currently dating that, I'll do something real bad to you).
The situation is I respect Different Sex Marriage and Same Sex Marriage. You're trying to say I don't respect DSM, not based on my feelings towards DSM, but rather on the basis that I do respect SSM. The way I see it, it's not traditional marriage (i.e. a committed relationship between a man and a woman that has those bases from above that we all seem to agree on) that you're saying I don't respect, but rather tradition.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote: Why would you support it if you don't gain anything?
Well, by that logic I guess I shouldn't support, say, my government wasting MY tax dollars on helping people who can't afford the basic necessities of life. After all, *I* don't need government funds to buy food, so why would I possibly want anyone else to get them?
Or discrimination based on race. I'm white. It's probable that if I am in a situation involving racial discrimination, I'll be the one to benefit. So why would I possibly support having racial discrimination illegal?
Wait, I guess I do gain something from my support-- the knowledge that there is more equality and more justice because I support those things.
Oh well. There goes my arument up in smoke. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Scott R wrote: I'm fairly certain that women are STILL the only humans capable of bearing children.
Clearly, then, lesbian relationships should be the pinnacle of all relationships! With two women, the couple can have twice as many children! And they can have them in parallel -- what if both women are simultaneously pregnant with twins? Imagine! Now that's fruitful multiplication.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Mariann, you complained no one replied to the points you made in your initial post. I will attempt to explain why I don't find the points you made there convincing:
quote:Originally posted by Mariann: The author is also failing to address the vast number of men and women who fail at marriage, because they don't adhere to those ideals. Allowing gays to marry is not going to break society's traditional marriage ideals- *they're already broken*, which makes this entire essay look like one big excuse. With the author's logic, we should disallow young people, fresh out of highschool, to marry- since chances are they won't stick to those subjective ideals.
I'm not sure how this paragraph is tied together logically. First, just because some marriages fail doesn't mean radically redefining marriage won't make things worse. If my car has a flat tire I don't just say, "Oh well. Might as well pull out the engine."
Further, I don't see how the author's logic would imply young people shouldn't get married (especially since I think divorce rates would decrease if people married younger). What is your logic here?
quote:But we cannot deny a group of people the right to marry one another simply because we "don't think they'll hold our values dear." (Emphasis on the word "think." There is no evidence that gay marriage will be more or less moral than the average heterosexual union.)
Why can't we? We deny marriage to all sorts of groups for a variety of reasons, among which are a shared value system. As for evidence that gay marriage will be more or less moral, what morality are you talking about? I think homosexuality is immoral, therefore I believe every homosexual union is less moral than an average heterosexual one.
quote: As for explaining the differences of men and women- the qualities they posess that allow them to come together like yin and yang- many gay people do not adhere to the traditional gender roles set forth by society. A gay man may adopt a personality and behavior similar to a woman's because it fits him.
Men and women are different biologically and, I would assert and you may disagree if you choose, spiritually. To say a gay man can act like a woman is meaningless. He's still a man.
quote: But that's beside the point- unlike the author, we shouldn't insist on traditional gender roles to strengthen marriage. Part of the reason why marriage is crumbling is because women and men aren't subjected to the same strict gender boundaries they were in the 1950's. Unless he's implying we should go back to where men had the full financial burden and women stayed home with the kids and cleaned... in that case, he does appear to be ignorant.
Did you mistype here? Your second sentance seems to say "marriages are crumbling because we got rid of gender roles." Am I misreading? Wouldn't that belief be an argument for reintroducing gender roles (assuming we want to prevend the crumbling of marriages) which you conclude is an ignorant thing to do? And why would it be ignorant? Is it just because "everyone knows" we're better off since we got rid of traditional gender roles (a term often misunderstood and misused by both sides)? Or do you have some objective reason why it was ignorant?
quote: Then he speaks of "transformation," which makes his entire essay sound incredibly hypocritical. The fact that two people, in our progressive society, can be liberated of duties pertaining to their gender, and can still come together and live up to those marriage ideals, is transformation at it's most amazing!!
This is certainly an amazing transformation, but it isn't the sort of transformation he was talking about. His belief is that a homosexual union cannot inspire the same degree of spiritual one-ness as a heterosexual one. The transformation he's talking about is two people becoming one spiritually.
quote: While the gay community certainly has a role in this, unless you're a fundamentalist then there is no problem.
What makes one a fundamentalist? Millions of people in the US and billions more around the world have a problem with SSM. Are we all fundamentalists?
quote: Actually, the fact that gays WANT to engage in a traditional marriage with one another, one that the author considers moral and good, should be embraced and accepted.
Gays don't want to engage in traditional marriage. They can't. Traditionally, marriage has required a man and a woman (for the last thousand plus years). Homosexuals want to redefine marriage so it will include their union. But at least some of the things the author considers "moral and good" about traditional marriage could not be part of the redefined marriage posited by the pro-SSM community.
quote: No, the reason the author has a problem with it is because God says being gay is a sin. He should just 'fess up now.
I don't think the author ever disputed much of his opposition to SSM is religously based. There's no fessing up for him to do. His point (as I see it) is that there will be extreme social repercussions to dramatically redefining the most central institutation of our society, and that he believes (possibly for religious reasons) that those social repercussions will be overwhelming negative. He's not trying to cover up his religious reasons for opposing SSM. He's showing why his religious reasons lead him to oppose it.
Finally let me say I read all your subsequent posts and, in my opinion, you are pontificating rather than listening. Have the courtesy to try to understand that people can disagree with you without them being stupid, ignorant fundamentalists. If you can do this you might be able to understand their arguments, rather than simply being disgusted by them.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:As I see it, the entire essay rests on the conclusion that all these terrible things are going to happen to the state of marriage,
Nope. The entire essay rests on the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, even in the "pre-existance."
That, in my opinion, is the key difference between advocates and opponents of same sex marriage -- whether opposite sex (or "traditional") marriage is the joining together of two different types of beings or two of the same type of being with superficial differences including gender.
If gender is an essential part of the "essence" (pre-exiestent intelligence, soul, spirit, whatever) of a person, then the joining together of two of the same "thing" is fundamentally different than the joining together of two complementary "things." If NOT -- then deciding who can marry who on the basis of gender is irrelevent.
And that is why, in my opinion, most of the arguments on this thread are talking past each other. Unless this fundamental difference in assumptions is addressed, the arguments on both sides miss the point.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
TomD asked why I liked to talk with people who agree with me rather than those who do not. There are at least two reasons. The first is that I feel completely drowned in a world that thinks and acts completely different from me and therefore there is no reason for me to go out of my way to interact with them. I am, you could say, looking for peace in a storm that I cannot seem to control.
That leads to my second reason indirectly related to the final sentence of the paragraph. In my effort to create that peace of belonging, my mission is not to discover and learn from others, but to create a particular society. In other words, metaphorically build a Kingdom rather than expand in knowledge. Therefore, my pleasure is to find like minded people as best as I can to work together to achieve as close to my ideals as possible.
OSC has the similarities and "power" to help achieve some particular goals, but sadly doesn't seem to have the desire. Rather than exciting to find him, it has become disappointing if not tragic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, Obviously I disagree. The essay is not primarily focused on what the differences are between straight and gay marriage, but what the LDS will be giving up if gay marriage becomes legal. The central point of the essay is that not banning gay marriage will lead to these negative effects on marriage. Even if people disagree that there is a difference between men and women that overwhelms all other differences, they will not necessarily have different opinions on whether accepting gay marriage will cause the LDS to give up something and lead to a massive disrespect for marriage.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Senoj: I'm pretty sure it's been shown that people who marry later tend to be less likely to divorce.
I mean, if you're young, you're less likely to know what you want or what can work for you. You're less likely to be willing to compromise for your relationship, especially when it comes to career. And since you're likely just starting out in said career, you're not likely to have the flexibility or options that you'd have later on. Then, of course, there's that whole mid-life crisis thing.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Everyone stand back! Occ wants to make everyone think like OSC, but is now realizing that OSC doesn't necessarily want that, making it so Occ now doesn't think like OSC, except that he wants to make everyone think like OSC, but that makes him think different from OSC. I fear the resulting paradox may make his head asplode. If you have small children with you, you may not want them to see this.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And that is why, in my opinion, most of the arguments on this thread are talking past each other. Unless this fundamental difference in assumptions is addressed, the arguments on both sides miss the point.
Hear, hear. Or is it here, here. I don't think I've ever seen it written before.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That post was not conducive to a civilized conversation.
In other words Squicky, the conversation has lost you again, eh?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: The argument that the Bible says it is a sin is not debunkable by anyone. If you believe that the Bible says it's a sin, and you believe that the Bible is the most important source, than that clinches it for you. Nothing anyone else can say will "debunk" it for you. If you don't believe this, then it doesn't need "debunking", does it?
If one is going to use the Bible as their authority, I have to wonder why homosexuality is such a big deal. It doesn't seem to be for God - at least compared to other things. It doesn't, for example, get listed in the "Top Ten". Surely making it into the ten commandments would indicate some sort of priority, yet we don't have a problem with sabbath-breakers in the military, nor do we have laws against folks that covet stuff. I haven't seen many Hatrack threads or proposed constituional changes about honoring our parents?
Homosexuality is mentioned in Leviticus - along with a whole lot of other stuff. Are you trying to get laws passed that outline what kind of foods we can eat? How we make our clothing? What kind of crops we can plant? If not, why not if "the Bible says it's a sin and the Bible is the most important source"?
Paul mentions it - maybe. Depending on the translation, it's pretty iffy. Of course Paul was arguing against sensuality of any type as a symptom of secular culture; he only grudgingly acknowledged that people should marry at all.
Most importantly, in none of the gospels that most Christians hold as canonical is homosexuality ever mentioned. Not once. If this were such a hot topic, certainly our Lord would have had something to say about it. It seems He did not. What the gospels do record Jesus preaching over and over again is a message of inclusion. Of bringing everyone to the table. His harshest words were for those who attempted to judge the sins of others.
(BTW, MrSquicky, your post last night was beautiful.)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
pH-
I would reply that if you marry young you're less likely to be set in your ways, more likely to build a life together rather than force your partner into a pre-existing one, and more likely to accomodate differing opinions and viewpoints into future plans and aspirations. You will have more flexibility in creating a successful marriage because you won't be burdened with as many pre-existing goals. Starting out in a career is when you have the most flexability because you have yet to set your work/home priorities; a lawyer who starts his career working 90 hour weeks often ends his career working 90 hour weeks.
I think the popular opinion that marrying later in life is based solely on conjecture and to me the conjecture is unconvincing.
<edited for clarity>
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, What the crap are you talking about?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Nope. The entire essay rests on the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, even in the "pre-existance."
quote:The essay is not primarily focused on what the differences are between straight and gay marriage, but what the LDS will be giving up if gay marriage becomes legal.
I think you're disagreeing with something other than what dkw said. She said it "rests on the idea." And really, it does. There are two major contentions made:
quote:First, that there are significant benefits that man-woman marriage brings to individuals and society generally, which can come from no other source.
Second, that extending marriage to same-sex couples would so compromise man-woman marriage that these benefits would substantially cease to flow.
The second contention is not an argument against legally recognized same-sex marriage unless the first contention is true.
The pivotal point in the discussion of contention one is based on the author's view of the gender differences that Dana mentioned, because that's what supports the inclusion of "man-woman" in that contention.
You're focusing on the conclusion, but Dana was focusing on the foundation ("rests on").
His case is entirely dependent on his belief that the blessings of marriage are absolutely dependent on the gender differences. While it's true that one can agree with this point and disagree with the conclusion, that doesn't change the fact that the essay's conclusions would fail if this point were not true.
It's also clear that one line of support (I believe the most popular one) for equal civil marriage for gay couples is the idea that gender is not important to marriage. If this argument wins out, then the concept of the importance of the gender differences will have taken an enormous hit in the minds of the public.
As I've said before, when people say "Gay marriage will weaken marriage," they don't generally mean that any identifiable couple will get divorced because two guys down the street got married. They mean the idea of the man-woman component of marriage will be weakened as an idea. They see gay marriage as an affirmation of the idea that marriage is principally about romantic love.
I happen to think the damage has been done already, by other things, and that the future of marriage as an instutition is dependent on people rigorously separating Marriage from the legal accouterments of marriage. This is why I don't see legal gay marriage as a threat to Marriage.
quote:Homosexuality is mentioned in Leviticus - along with a whole lot of other stuff. Are you trying to get laws passed that outline what kind of foods we can eat? How we make our clothing? What kind of crops we can plant? If not, why not if "the Bible says it's a sin and the Bible is the most important source"?
Because, at least according to Christian scripture, the laws regarding food were specifically "repealed" (not really the right word, but close enough and excepting laws related to blood) while the laws regarding sexual morality were not.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Squick – no, the essay is not primarily focused on it. But it is the underlying assumption on which the argument of the essay (that same sex marriage undermines the very definition of marriage) rests.
From the article:
quote:We come now to the heart of the case. It is that the oneness and personal growth and fruitfulness attainable in man-woman marriage cannot be matched by any other human possibilities. To marry in the traditional way is to step into a world of opportunity that cannot be measured on any scales familiar to people trying to live as individuals.
Why is this so? It is because of the fundamental differences between man and woman. These differences are not like any of the other differences that distinguish persons. They are, despite the opinion of some, much more fundamental than differences of race, nationality, or talent. The features of the male-female difference that make it fundamental include two that I want to mention here: First, as the Proclamation on the Family says, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Second, the differences of male and female make them complementary to one another in such a way that they require one another for completeness and fruitfulness. Because of his masculinity and her femininity, a man and a woman together possess the capacity, under God-given conditions, to form a unity endowed with powers and blessed with enjoyments unattainable in any other way.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: pH-
I would reply that if you marry young you're less likely to be set in your ways, more likely to build a life together rather than force your partner into a pre-existing one, and more likely to accomodate differing opinions and viewpoints into future plans and aspirations. You will have more flexibility in creating a successful marriage because you won't be burdened with as many pre-existing goals. Starting out in a career is when you have the most flexability because you have yet to set your work/home priorities; a lawyer who starts his career working 90 hour weeks often ends his career working 90 hour weeks.
I think the popular opinion that marrying later in life is based solely on conjecture and to me the conjecture is unconvincing.
<edited for clarity>
We're defining "flexibility" differently, in terms of career. You seem to be saying that if you marry young, you can choose a different career. What I'm saying is, that's the problem. You shouldn't choose a different career based solely on what your spouse wants; you'll end up resenting him/her for your lost opportunities.
What I meant was, if you wait say, ten years before getting married, you're less likely to have to move to different cities for work. You already have resumes established, so you can probably find good jobs in the fields you both want without leaving the city. And you generally have more flexibility with hours.
A lawyer who starts out working long hours to establish himself may have more people to help him out later in life, or he may have a better ability to take vacations or be more selective with his cases.
As for actual figures on divorce rates/age, here you go.
-pH
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
All of those posts in 12 hours??? How am I suppose to keep up?
Just to answer tern back from the top of page 5 [edit--another page added since I write this post?? ]. A religious person could say society is already toast. Gay marriage isn't even legal so it can't be blamed. Porn is much worse than gay marriage imo because non-gay people indulge in it. Divorce is far too common, and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.
Just take a look at everything. So much is wrong. And gay marriage is only one of them. For a religious person, it is a really bad one (on page one of this thread my argument is that the worst thing gay marriage does is insult and mock the whole idea of marriage). But it isn't as bad as the things tearing married people apart, like porn (in all forms, xxx and Victoria Secret commercials).
Nobody talks about how much skin is shown on TV anymore. I remember when people use to complain about it. Now it is "normal".
I also think that if gay marriage is legalized, it will be just like abortion. People will hate it, but life will go on.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I also think that if gay marriage is legalized, it will be just like abortion. People will hate it, but life will go on.
Now THAT'S ironic.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I also think that if gay marriage is legalized, it will be just like abortion. People will hate it, but life will go on.
Now THAT'S ironic.
What do you mean?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The very nature of abortion is that life does not go on.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
human, I sincerely doubt that pornography or Victoria's Secret contributes as much to divorce as most people think.
-pH
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
pH-
The source material for what you pointed to is in a subscription journal. I can't judge whether it supports your contention without reading more than the one line quote on the page you linked to. A correlation of marrying young with future divorce is not sufficient (correlation/causation, blah, blah, blah. I get sick of hearing the phrase and detest having to use it).
I understand what you mean by flexibility, but I wasn't talking solely about choosing careers. I think your work habits early in your career will generally carry into your later career. So forming family friendly work habits early in your career helps marriages. This conjecture is based solely on my personal observations, but there you go, we can't all do the scientific social research we would like Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:The very nature of abortion is that life does not go on.
Oh. Well, abortion has been going on for a long time. I've known a few people who have had them, but for very good reasons (rape...).
My idea is that people who don't like gay marriages would just ignore people who have gay marriages. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess one of the points of gay marriage is to force people to give them benefits normally reserved for straight marriages.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: You just said that you have no problem hanging out with a gay person as long as he's not "doing something gay."
Now pH, you probably shouldnt put quotation marks around something that I never typed.
I'm also at a loss as to how 'I forget that theyre gay until I see them kiss their same sex partner' equates to 'As long as they pretend to be straight' If a person is not locked in a 24 hour kiss with their opposite sex partner, does that suddenly equate to them pretending to be gay?
Seems to me that you guys are too prickly about whether or not homosexuals are being expected to "act straight". That really has nothing to do with me, especially considering the fact that the vast majority of a normal person's active daily life is spent performsing tasks and engaged in activities during which their sexual preference could most likely not be determined.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Senoj: That's strange...I didn't have any trouble accessing it at all.
A correlation of marrying young with later divorce isn't sufficient? Isn't that exactly what we were discussing? Whether people who marry younger are more likely to divorce than people who marry later?
-pH
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: human, I sincerely doubt that pornography or Victoria's Secret contributes as much to divorce as most people think.
No, but it is a visible symptom of what is going on. There is much less respect for marriage. Marriage is hard enough. One of the incentives of marriage, is, well... Give it away for "free" and that incentive becomes less powerful.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
odouls: ...it wasn't intended to directly quote you. But okay, whatever.
You said yourself that your feelings of discomfort when a gay person publicly displays affection are different than your discomfort whan a heterosexual person does the same.
So basically, it seems to me that your default assumption is that all people are straight (since you forget that the person is gay), and you become uncomfortable when you find that this assumption is incorrect.
Does this apply to men or to men and women equally?
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: That, in my opinion, is the key difference between advocates and opponents of same sex marriage -- whether opposite sex (or "traditional") marriage is the joining together of two different types of beings or two of the same type of being with superficial differences including gender.
If gender is an essential part of the "essence" (pre-exiestent intelligence, soul, spirit, whatever) of a person, then the joining together of two of the same "thing" is fundamentally different than the joining together of two complementary "things." If NOT -- then deciding who can marry who on the basis of gender is irrelevent.
The assumption here, of course, is that people have such an essence/soul/spirit. Given that I don't believe they do, my arguments in support of legalizing civil marriage for homosexual couples have to be made from a pragmatic standpoint. I originally intended to leave this thread well enough alone for precisely that reason -- if people want to talk about divine morality and souls and so forth and what those things mean for same-sex marriage, well, it would be rude of me to rain on the parade by doing anything other than spectating with interest, or maybe asking some questions for clarification of doctrine. But in a discussion of whether same-sex marriage should be legal, which is what the thread became, the question of essence/soul is only relevant as a means of understanding why people feel the way they do.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And that is why, in my opinion, most of the arguments on this thread are talking past each other. Unless this fundamental difference in assumptions is addressed, the arguments on both sides miss the point.
I think that when you want to discuss this issue, you need to be clear about whether or not you're arguing the legalization question. This thread was clear about that at the outset, but has since become quite muddled. Part of the problem is that the "decay of society" argument is used in both contexts.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: A correlation of marrying young with later divorce isn't sufficient? Isn't that exactly what we were discussing? Whether people who marry younger are more likely to divorce than people who marry later?
Well, you have to be careful with stuff like this; even a strong correlation does not necessarily imply a causal relationship (as SR noted). For instance, people who marry younger have more time in which to get divorced, since they have on average more of their lifetimes remaining. If people die on average at 75 and a couple gets married at 20, they've got 55 potential "divorce years;" a couple marrying at 45 only has 30. That alone might cause the correlation if it wasn't controlled for by the people who did the study. That's why SR wants to read the whole article -- the authors will explain what other factors they did and did not control for and whether they suspect an actual causal relationship.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, Perhaps we are using different definitions of rests on. I wasn't using it in the sense of "uses this as a foundation" but rather as "makes this as its central concern/assertion". Without the "gay marriage will elad to all these bad things happening to marriage" part, the essay has not achieved its purpose or fulfilled the title.
Dag, This article makes very specific perdictions about what will happen to marriages in general, namely that no one will respect the ideas of commitment or other families, etc. anymore. I'm asking where this disrespect is going to come from, as the most of the people who I know on the pro-gay marriage side of this issue greatly respect these things. In fact, looking at things like the rates of divorce and domestic abuse, it seems like it's the most ardent opponents to gay marriage, evangelical Christians, who are least respectful to marriage and the family.
We don't regard heterosexual marriage as less important because of our support for gay marriage and we don't see why letting gays get married would in any way weaken people's commitment to marriage as defined by the bases that I've quoted multiple times from the essay. I don't see any way that a heterosexual marraige is enhanced by the idea that gay people can't marry. And, if we support and regard all these bases, such as commitment, selflessness, and sacrifice, as important, how can you say that it will turn marriage into just about romantic love and that everyone will reject commitment and the like?
The gays who want to get married are not choosing between straight marriages and this. They are choosing between trying to build loving, healthy, working partnerships and families, and no partnerships and no families. How does letting them try to form these things, that everyone seems to regard as fundamental components to our society, weakening these concepts, especially as the alternative is no marriages? Are you saying that they cannot succeed?
People keep saying that it's not just a matter of these people being able to get married, but that it is an attack on marriage and that it will affect them, the peopel who are opposing gay marriage. I don't see how. To me, that seems to be saying that the bases from the essay pale in significance to the putative male-female difference. From my perspective, I see focusing on husbands and wives not acting more "masculine" and "feminine", respectively (whatever that means) as a basic problem in marriage is a really, really bad idea, besides being disrespectful to what really makes marriages beautiful things. It's the commitment and sacrifice and selflessness and families as "Temples in a profane world" that makes marriages beautiful and it's these things that we are having problems with. When we celebrate good marriages, we don't talk about how manly the husband is and how womanly the wife is. I'd even ague that pushing steroetypical "masculine" and "feminine" roles has actually hurt marriage a great deal. You want to talk about redefinining marriage in a way that weakens it, I think this is a prime example. And the scorn that these articles tend to pour on families with adopted children looks quite a bit like an attack on the family to me.
edit: To continue on that a little bit, I think marriages are hurting a lot more because the people going into them are far too selfish and immature than the fact that we let girls become engineers and guys dancers. I actually think that not forcibly prohibiting men and women from following their inclinations when they come in conflict with traditional gender roles leads in the end to stronger people and thus stronger marriages. Even the act of blaming somoene else for the problems in your culture betrays to me a fundamental lack of maturity.
[ October 21, 2005, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: A correlation of marrying young with later divorce isn't sufficient? Isn't that exactly what we were discussing? Whether people who marry younger are more likely to divorce than people who marry later?
I thought we were discussing whether marrying young caused future divorce, not whether marrying young indicated a liklihood of future divorce. Marrying young and future divorce could both be caused by something else resulting in a correlation, but that wouldn't imply that marrying young was a cause of future divorce.
Although, I just threw the idea out there. I have no basis other than conjecture for my point of view, either. If I see a good statistical analysis it could certainly prove me wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This article makes very specific perdictions about what will happen to marriages in general, namely that no one will respect the ideas of commitment or other families, etc. anymore. I'm asking where this disrespect is going to come from, as the most of the people who I know on the pro-gay marriage side of this issue greatly respect these things.
The article's premise seems to be that the ideas of commitment, etc. arise out of our understanding of the true institution of marriage. You disagree. I get that. But please stop saying they haven't explained it. They have. you don't buy several of their premises and find the explanation unsatisfactory. Fine. I, myself, reach different conclusions than they do. But they have explained it.
Just as starLisa's libertarian justification for her views on marriage won't convince a non-libertarian, just as your contention that law shouldn't attempt to impose morality won't convince someone who thinks the law should do so that gay marriage is fine, this guys reliance on his premises that you don't accept won't convince you.
It should help you understand why the arguments you make about the enlightenment and the purposes of government won't convince most gay marriage opponents. You have a fundamental disagreement about the purposes of government with them. Rather than simply insisting no one has made an argument, you need to either engage in a discussion about the premises (which probably shouldn't mention gay marriage at all) or try to find a way using their premises to change their mind.
quote:Are you saying that they cannot succeed?
No. Why would you even ask that? I haven't said ANYTHING like that.
quote:In fact, looking at things like the rates of divorce and domestic abuse, it seems like it's the most ardent opponents to gay marriage, evangelical Christians, who are least respectful marriage and the family.
Could you please cite this. I keep seeing it said, but the only stats I've seen linked on it compare divorce rate per capita, not per marriage.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I have taken far too many statistics courses, guys. I know the difference between correlation and causation.
What I said was that people who marry young are more likely to divorce. Yes, there are any number of reasons for that. But Senoj was saying that people who married younger were LESS likely to divorce, and that is simply not the case.
-pH
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: So basically, it seems to me that your default assumption is that all people are straight
As opposed to the assumption that all people are gay? Yes, I suppose so. If that's how you want to look at it. But through that logic, it could just as easily be inferred that my assumption is that all people are infatuated with the family beagle.
In truth, I just don't give thought to sexual preference until given a reason to do so, As illustrated by
quote: the fact that the vast majority of a normal person's active daily life is spent performsing tasks and engaged in activities during which their sexual preference could most likely not be determined
But when given a reason to do so, my reaction could be described thusly:
Heterosexual: "They should really get a room."
Homosexual: "Ick. They should really get a room."
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Also, I'm really not sure it's possible to get a good statistical analysis on the possible causes of divorce in relation to the age the marriage took place. The best I could think of would be to examine the reason cited for the divorce, but nowadays I believe that's "irreconcilable differences."
-pH
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'm interested to know in what way BlackBlade's life will actually change or even be slightly inconvenienced by having to "abide by" a law that will give my relationship with Chris legal protection.
What legal freedom are you enjoying now that you won't have then?
And if you had read my vegan social metaphor, I would ask "what legal freedoms were being violated by say a new come guest eating a BLT in front of the other guests?"
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: What I said was that people who marry young are more likely to divorce
I would say this is likely, according to an article I read that I've referenced in other threads concerning the rise of young couples and their "practice marriages" in preparation for their "real marriage" later.
quote: posted October 21, 2005 12:25 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by KarlEd: I'm interested to know in what way BlackBlade's life will actually change or even be slightly inconvenienced by having to "abide by" a law that will give my relationship with Chris legal protection.
What legal freedom are you enjoying now that you won't have then? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you had read my vegan social metaphor, I would ask "what legal freedoms were being violated by say a new come guest eating a BLT in front of the other guests?"
And I would say (continuing your metaphor)that whatever "legal freedoms" your metaphorical vegan has to shun those who can only eat meat must be less important than the "legal freedoms" meat eaters have not to starve.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
odouls: The idea of a starter marriage makes me sad.
And as I asked before, does that "ick" thing apply to men only or to both men and women?
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Way to get to the heart of the issue, dkw. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Could you point out to me where they actually explain how this disrespect for marriage is going to follow from letting gays marry, because I honestly don't see it. What I see is, traditional marraige is between a man and a woman, thus letting two men or two women marry is not a traditional marriage. For some reason, this will cause everyone to stop taking commitment and families and such seriously. As far as I see it, there is no attempt to link exclusivly male-female marriages to the idea of commitment. I see magical thinking, not any sort of logical argument.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
On the statistics thing, I'm not sure what you're asking. You've seen the stats that show that evangelicals have a much higher divorce rate the both the average population and other religions and atheists and agnostics, right? Are you saying that this much higher rate is because these other religions and atheists and agnostics generally don't get married, because I can get statistics that show that evangelicals do not have significantly higher marriages rates than some of these groups and rates that are higher but nowhere near enough to cover the divorce gap with others? Or are you asking about the domestic abuse rate, because I don't actually have a breakdown by religion for that, just state and regional breakdowns that show significantly higher abuse rates in places where evangelicals live, like in the Bible Belt. So it's honestly not a direct link.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think we can all safely agree that faith-based opinions are far more subjective than, say, morals derived from cold, hard facts. Those facts being that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, and there is nothing wrong with gay marriages. Until those who are against same-sex marriages can come up with a logical reason stating otherwise, then I refuse to accept their stance on the issue. "Because the Bible says it's a sin", and "Because we like marriage the way it is" *are not viable arguments.* They're easily debunked by anyone.
Wait a minute, this is just laughable. First of all, give me some morals derived from 'cold, hard facts'. You can't. It's impossible.
Second, it is not a 'fact' that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, or homosexual marriage. That's another laughable statement. You think there is nothing wrong with either. I am undecided on the first, and I agree with the second, but not because it's a fact, but because it appears to me that there is nothing wrong with SSM.
You haven't debunked a thing. Your argument is 'it's a fact, everyone knows it'. That just as pointless as far as 'cold hard facts' are concerned as the viewpoint you're ridiculing, 'it's a sin because God says so.'
You think it's logical. You believe it's a fact. You can prove, however, neither statement.
And neither can I. Nor can I disprove them. And that second part, that I can't disprove that homosexuality is OK, and there's nothing wrong with SSM, are precisely the reasons I think SSM should be permitted. Not because I know they're facts, that's just nonsense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Let me see if I can pull some stuff together.
Why or why not the definition of marriage is flexible:
View of marriage/family as a joining of two gender opposites to create something new vs. view of marriage/family as a commitment of individuals to love and care for each other.
Why this can or cannot be a church thing rather than a state thing:
View of government/law as a way of creating an ideal society vs. view of government/law as a way of guarding the rights of an individual and other stuff like getting the roads paved, etc.
I'm not saying that the views above are exclusive of each other, perhaps that some are a more primary focus.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The question I'm stuck on right now is how allowing people of the same sex who believe in commitment, selflessness, sacrifice and all that other good stuff to get married obviously leads to a society where no one believes in commitment, selflessness, sacrifice, etc.?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: What I said was that people who marry young are more likely to divorce. Yes, there are any number of reasons for that. But Senoj was saying that people who married younger were LESS likely to divorce, and that is simply not the case.
I don't see how, based on the stats you've pointed to, you can make the claim that it's "simply not the case." I initially posted saying I think if people married younger there would be less divorce. You reply by saying people who marry younger are more likely to divorce. But unless age is the cause of that increased liklihood, which is not established by the facts you pointed to, it doesn't disprove my assertion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Could you point out to me where they actually explain how this disrespect for marriage is going to follow from letting gays marry, because I honestly don't see it. What I see is, traditional marraige is between a man and a woman, thus letting two men or two women marry is not a traditional marriage. For some reason, this will cause everyone to stop taking commitment and families and such seriously. As far as I see it, there is no attempt to link exclusivly male-female marriages to the idea of commitment. I see magical thinking, not any sort of logical argument.
Squick, see the bottom of p. 8 of the HTML link. For some reason, I couldn't cut and paste from it.
It's not so magical thinking as logical progression from beliefs held in faith ("magical beliefs" if you will). And it leaves many steps unstated.
The two unproven premises he seems to be using are:
1.) the legal definition will affect how people view marriage and lead to the word "marriage" being captured.
2.) this change will, unlike other types of changes to marriage, be propogated across generations.
From there he reasons that this will change the institution itself as communicating the "traditional" idea becomes impossible or difficult.
quote:On the statistics thing, I'm not sure what you're asking. You've seen the stats that show that evangelicals have a much higher divorce rate the both the average population and other religions and atheists and agnostics, right? Are you saying that this much higher rate is because these other religions and atheists and agnostics generally don't get married, because I can get statistics that show that evangelicals do not have significantly higher marriages rates than some of these groups and rates that are higher but nowhere near enough to cover the divorce gap with others?
I am asking for statistics that show that greater percentage of marriages between evangelicals end in divorce than for other groups. I've ever only seen statistics related to divorce per capita.
As to direct comparisons of marriage rates to divorce rates, both per capita, there are several ways that evangelical marriages could end in divorce at the same or less than others and still have higher per capita divorce rates and close to identical marriage rates.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But that part merely addresses the social transmission problem introduced by the legal change. It doesn't describe the way that a change seemingly unrelated to things like commitment will lead to changes in things like commitment.
quote:As to direct comparisons of marriage rates to divorce rates, both per capita, there are several ways that evangelical marriages could end in divorce at the same or less than others and still have higher per capita divorce rates and close to identical marriage rates.
The stats I'm thinking of (from here) don't reference number of divorces per capita, but rather number of people who have been divorced per captia. It's possible that fewer marriages are ending in divorce, but there is a larger percentage of people getting them, demonstrating a wider disrespect for the commitment to marriage. I figure that showing that it's not a matter of just that a larger percentage remain single in the other populations makes that point. Do you see a problem with this?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But that part merely addresses the social transmission problem introduced by the legal change. It doesn't describe the way that a change seemingly unrelated to things like commitment will lead to changes in things like commitment.
Earlier he makes the point that the commitment to commitment comes out of marriage. Again, a different starting point than you have.
quote:It's possible that fewer marriages are ending in divorce, but there is a larger percentage of people getting them, demonstrating a wider disrespect for the commitment to marriage. I figure that showing that it's not a matter of just that a larger percentage remain single in the other populations makes that point.
Either way, until we know the percent who have married we can't draw the conclusion your making.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by pH: What I said was that people who marry young are more likely to divorce. Yes, there are any number of reasons for that. But Senoj was saying that people who married younger were LESS likely to divorce, and that is simply not the case.
I don't see how, based on the stats you've pointed to, you can make the claim that it's "simply not the case." I initially posted saying I think if people married younger there would be less divorce. You reply by saying people who marry younger are more likely to divorce. But unless age is the cause of that increased liklihood, which is not established by the facts you pointed to, it doesn't disprove my assertion.
People who marry younger ARE more likely to divorce. The divorce rates for people who marry at twenty or younger are almost 50%, while those who marry at 24 or later have a divorce rate of about 24%. I fail to see, then, how people marrying younger would automatically decrease the divorce rate.
Let's say there ARE other factors contributing to the divorce rate, as I'm sure there are. Marrying younger wouldn't remove these factors.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Earlier he makes the point that the commitment to commitment comes out of marriage. Again, a different starting point than you have.
Why didn't you point to that section then? Could you show me where he does this? Because I see him stating that as an assumption, but not supporting it with any logical statements. Thus magical thinking. I can say that people wearing the color purple is going to affect people's fidelity to marriage, but I've merely made an assertion, not provided any sort of reasoning.
edit: And do I read that right, that you're now admitting that per capita marriage rates would settle this issue if they are as I described?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why didn't you point to that section then? Could you show me where he does this? Because I see him stating that as an assumption, but not supporting it with any logical statements. Thus magical thinking. I can say that people wearing the color purple is going to affect people's fidelity to marriage, but I've merely made an assertion, not provided any sort of reasoning.
I just said it's a starting point.
quote:And do I read that right, that you're now admitting that per capita marriage rates would settle this issue if they are as I described?
No. I'm not preadmitting anything. I'd like to see percent of marriages that fail before I accept your analysis. Even showing percent who have been married wouldn't necessarily help here.
once I see numbers I can evaluate I'll do so. Until then, your numbers have not proven your conclusion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean by saying that it's a starting point? Because, the way I read it, you are no longer contesting that the essay provided reasons for why allowing gay marriage will lead to a disrespect for commitment, etc. Is that accurate, or am I supposed to take something else away from this?
---
So far as I see it, there is only one way of casting the provided divorce statistics as not indicative of a wider disrespect for marriage in the evangelical Christian population, and that is by showing that the larger percentages of individuals that get divorced are a function of of that many more people getting married in the evangelical population than in the ones compared to it. I'm not about to go through the effort of trying to dig these numbers up without some indication from you that this will actually settle the question. You must have alternative explanations for why this doesn't say what I'm claiming it does. If you can make them explicit by stating them, we can test them.
As it stands, the numbers provided are already pretty damning. The people claiming to value marriage so highly contain just about largest percentage of divorces. Even without the comparative measure, they've got a lot to answer for when over 1/4 of them have been divorced.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: People who marry younger ARE more likely to divorce.
True, but that is not sufficient to imply that if people WERE TO marry younger it would increase the divorce rate. Unless there's a causal link the logic doesn't follow.
quote: Let's say there ARE other factors contributing to the divorce rate, as I'm sure there are. Marrying younger wouldn't remove these factors.
Unless, of course, delaying marriage was the (or a primary) cause of those factors.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean by saying that it's a starting point? Because, the way I read it, you are no longer contesting that the essay provided reasons for why allowing gay marriage will lead to a disrespect for commitment, etc. Is that accurate, or am I supposed to take something else away from this?
Forget it. I can't explain it.
But here's a hint: when you understand the case being made in the article, you will be in a position to change someone's mind on this subject. Until then, you are unlikely to ever succeed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You totally can explain it. What do you mean by saying "It's a starting point." and how does that affect what I'm saying? From my perspective, calling something a starting point means that it is an axiom and thus not a reason. Considering that you made a specific accusation that my statment that they don't provide reasons for this, this would suggest that you are unable to bck up this accusation.
Is that accurate? Or are you using "starting point" in a way that makes it a reason?
Because, I got to tell you, this "I can't explain it." seems to me like trying to weasel out of admitting that your accusation was groundless.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote:And as I asked before, does that "ick" thing apply to men only or to both men and women?
Depends on my age at the time you're asking Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
And I'd like to defer this question to Dogbert's clues for the clueless, in his chapter on PDA.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean by saying that it's a starting point?
Dag means it's an axiom for this guy. It's assumed. I've certainly heard from Mormons that this interpretation of the role of marriage is drilled into their heads from youth -- and, yeah, it's not necessarily based on anything. It's treated as a given. For this reason, it'll be hard to reach someone on this point.
The reason Dag doesn't feel up to explaining it to you is roughly the same, as I understand it; from where I'm standing, it looks like Dag believes that you hold as an axiom the belief that all premises are grounded in logical thought. From this POV, trying to explain to you that this guy's premises are not based on logic would be ultimately futile.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I mean I literally can't explain it. I don't think in words, I translate my thoughts to words. I comprehend what I read by converting it to thoughts. In this case, I can't perform the translation in a way that is comprehendable to you.
Starting point: commitment to commitment is learned through marriage.
Conclusion: if marriage is damaged, it will damage the ability of people to learn commitment.
That's as simple and basic as I can make it, and it does no justice to the article because it leaves out every ounce of nuance. But that's the best I can do.
quote:Because, I got to tell you, this "I can't explain it." seems to me like trying to weasel out of admitting that your accusation was groundless.
So should I just go ahead and interpret your inability to understand what I've now said at least three times as your attempt to weasel oout of admitting your accusation that he didn't give reasons is wrong? Just let me know the ground rules. If you want to admit that communication about abstract ideas is difficult, I'll be willing to accept you at face value that you really don't understand where the reasons are.
But if you want to impute bad motives to my admission of my inability to explain someone, then I'll just figure I explained it fine and put the bad motives on you.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Dag, Could you point out to me where they actually explain how this disrespect for marriage is going to follow from letting gays marry, because I honestly don't see it.
I can. This is the part you're missing from what I posted earlier. If you accept the gender distinctions that the author of the article takes as basic axioms, then the definition of marriage is the joining of these two complementary "essences." Letting two people of the same "essence" join is not marriage, and calling it that is disrespectful because it doesn't fit the definition, thus changing the meaning of the word.
The distinguishing feature here is not love, stability, commitment, etc., all of which can be shared by same-sex couples. It's the idea that marriage is the combination of two specific things (man and woman).
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, That the author here has provided no logical reasons for why allowing gay marriage will lead to disrespect of commitment and that it is instead a magical thinking, unproven prejudice is exactly what I've been saying that Dag's been taking exception to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
dkw, But the essay specifically says that what they are going to be losing from the legal acceptance of gay marriage is respect for commitment and selflessness and sacrifice. People aren't going to care about marraige any longer, it says. People won't want to have childern.
I accept the idea that if they believe that the male-female difference overrides all others and that the union of these essenses is the central thing in marriage then there's a case to be made for allowing gay marriage weakening what they hold as the defintion of marriage. But as I've said, I see no description of how this is going to lead to the disrespect for the bases of marriage that the author claims is going to happen.
If he wants to claim that it will be weaking the male-female thing, I can't really offer a reasonable objection. But the specific claims towards how everyone is going to abandon the commitment, etc. that make up marriages because of gay marriage is presented as a statement without any explanation of how or why this would happen. That I can very well challenge.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the original argument, though, was that the author KNEW he wasn't going to do that, didn't intend to do that, and even specifically said at the beginning of his piece that he didn't intend to do that. He's preaching to the choir, specifically to people who already accept all the premises that make his conclusion a foregone one.
You and I may not see the point of this, of course, but presumably it's comforting to people who, like others who've posted on this thread, occasionally struggle with this decision.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Senoj: However, you also can't imply that marrying younger would decrease the divorce rate for the same reason.
I'm trying to think of a list of factors that cause divorce, other than "irreconcilable differences." I'm sure there are a lot, but maybe we could look at them in general terms.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tom, And I'm offering reasons for them to consider a different perspective. Namely that gay people and gay marriage advocates are not out to destroy commitment or selflessness or sacrifice in the marriage relationship, that these are acutally things we value very highly, that we want marriage for gay people specifically because we think that they are capable of these things and that them growing in a relationsip with them is a great thing, and that there aren't actually logical reasons to believe that this disrespct for commitment, etc. is going to follow from gay marriage. Dag took exception to that last part, saying that the essay did in fact provide reasons for why it will follow. But now he seems to me to be saying that the essay offered a statement of it, but no reasons, which is what I have said from the first.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Senoj: However, you also can't imply that marrying younger would decrease the divorce rate for the same reason.
Right. That's why I've been saying it's conjecture on both sides. Neither set of conjectures has been (or can be from the information posted thus far) proven.
quote: I'm trying to think of a list of factors that cause divorce, other than "irreconcilable differences." I'm sure there are a lot, but maybe we could look at them in general terms.
I think this is the right way to go. Here's the genesis of a list: financial issues, lack of time together, disagreement over sex, lack of romantic interst, having/raising children, loss of shared values.
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
Far be it from me to upset you Mormons and religious right wingers but the issue I see is pluralism. It's fine to be "against" abortion or "against" gay marriage but when you take that stance to mean making such things illegal and a matter of the state you are no better than the countless millions of oppressors in the history of mankind that have imposed their beliefs on others. If you don't like Gay marriage, don't be gay or don't get married. If you are against abortion, don't do it. But to Hell with you if you think you can tell me I can't. It's my America too.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Sticky-
Thanks for increasing the level of discourse.
(edit, some snarkiness removed. Sufficient remains)
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
Senoj- so you are putting Gay Marriage alongside Rape, and Murder on your list of infractions?
wow
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
making Gay Marriage illigal is a modern day Jim Crowe law and you should be ashamed of yourself and your god
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, StickyWicket, are you done bragging and thumping your chest yet? Shall we perhaps see how far you can pee?
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
bragging? how am I bragging?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're bragging about how righteous and honorable and brave you are by putting down those who disagree with you as ignorant bigots.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hmm, you know, I think your stance is a clever one, Mr. Squicky. I'll adopt it now.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Seriously, drop it. He's been what the crapped. If you keep it up, it's your fault that the thread gets dragged down.
edit: Nevermind.
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
Rakeesh, maybe it seems that I am attempting to get into a pissing contest but I'm so sick of ppl using religion as a cover story for prejudice and self righteous judgment.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks for the tip, Squick.
Posted by StickyWicket (Member # 7926) on :
no seriously, is all I have to do to say something heinous like "Black people should be locked up" is attach a "my religious background suggests that:" in front of it?
Posted by Ramdac99 (Member # 7264) on :
I think what he's saying Sticky is that we can't discuss any of these topics unless we have a civil forum. One where everyone feels they can contribute their opinion and concerns without being instantly judged and ridiculed. Everyone here has reasons for their feelings and, although you might not agree, they have as much right to voice them as you do. It's OUR America....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But now he seems to me to be saying that the essay offered a statement of it, but no reasons, which is what I have said from the first.
No, he's not. I've said there are reasons, which are premised on axioms you don't accept.
Just as you premise your ideas of what government should do on some axiom at some level, then use those axioms to provide reasons.
I certainly HAVE NOT said there aren't reasons there. I've said I can't explain them to you properly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: that there aren't actually logical reasons to believe that this disrespct for commitment, etc. is going to follow from gay marriage
Except that this is precisely something you won't be able to convince them, because it's one of their givens. It's ASSUMED that committment comes from marriage, and that SSM cheapens marriage. Ergo, SSM cheapens committment.
You need to challenge the presumptions to make any headway, but that's precisely the hardest thing to do in ANY debate. You need to somehow get someone to see that what they think is a given is actually a conclusion, and that can be very difficult.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
"First, just because some marriages fail doesn't mean radically redefining marriage won't make things worse."
But *how* will it make things worse? There's no logic for it. Gay couple who want to spend the rest of their lives with each other, raise a family, be monogamous, etc. are actually within the author's traditional ideals of marriage- they just happen to be members of the same sex. By support same-sex marriages, you're actually encouraging those kind of ideals. And like I said before, there is no evidence that gay marriage will make things worse. Until someone can give me reasons, then I do not accept your stance.
"Further, I don't see how the author's logic would imply young people shouldn't get married (especially since I think divorce rates would decrease if people married younger). What is your logic here?"
The author doesn't think gays should marry because he *doesn't believe they hold the same traditional ideals that he does.* With that logic, we shouldn't allow teenagers to marry because they don't understand that kind of lifelong committment.
"Why can't we? We deny marriage to all sorts of groups for a variety of reasons, among which are a shared value system."
Yes, for a variety of reasons- some of which makes sense, *others don't.* Your point is?
"As for evidence that gay marriage will be more or less moral, what morality are you talking about? I think homosexuality is immoral, therefore I believe every homosexual union is less moral than an average heterosexual one."
I'm not talking about religious morality. We all know that being gay is a sin according to Christians. I'm talking about the morality posed in the author's essay- the traditional marriage ideals that include monogamy, commitment, transformation, etc. There is no evidence that most gay couples are immoral in that aspect- which debunks the author's entire argument.
"Men and women are different biologically and, I would assert and you may disagree if you choose, spiritually. To say a gay man can act like a woman is meaningless. He's still a man."
How are women and men different spiritually? And I sincerely hope you haven't bought into the notion that one's sexuality and sense of gender is determined solely by their genitalia. There is biological evidence of homosexuality, and even "disorders" such as Gender Identity Disorder. (Actually, because of such evidence GID is no longer being recognized as a mental illness, something that needs to be "fixed.")
"Wouldn't that belief be an argument for reintroducing gender roles (assuming we want to prevend the crumbling of marriages) which you conclude is an ignorant thing to do?"
I would much rather see both genders be able to act as they wish, seek out their dreams however they wish, without the burden of strict gender stereotypes. If we must compromise marriage tradition for that, then so be it.
"And why would it be ignorant? Is it just because "everyone knows" we're better off since we got rid of traditional gender roles (a term often misunderstood and misused by both sides)?"
Men and women *are* better off. People who think we should go back to the traditions of the 1940's, as a quick fix to marriage ideals, are incredibly ignorant to how that structure was stifling to both men and women. I would rather see marriage suffer because society can adapt to our new sense of gender freedom. *Progress*. The key word is *progress.*
"His belief is that a homosexual union cannot inspire the same degree of spiritual one-ness as a heterosexual one."
Because being gay is a sin. That's what it boils down to, and it's an argument that does not hold up. The problem I have with people who use their religion as part of of political agenda is that a.) their religious beliefs are not rooted in factual evidence (ie. men and women become bound together spiritually), so there is a chance they could be wrong and b.) those faith-based opinions *do not apply to others.* Now, if your viewpoints were a mix of both faith and fact-based evidence, then I would sympathize.
And a little FYI to the author- not every heterosexual couple who gets married feels a deep, spiritual feeling with their spouse. There are, ya know, atheiests who marry one another, who manage to live happily for the rest of their lives. *The arguments don't add up.*
Furthermore, with the author's logic we should prohibit the un-spiritual to marry. Since they clearly defy the traditional ideals of marriage.
As for what makes a religious fundamentalist- I use it according to dictionary definition.
"A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism."
The majority of anti-gay advocates are people who use the Bible as a reason for intolerance. So yes, I do mean "fundamentalists."
"There's no fessing up for him to do."
Of course there is. Instead of writing essays he should just get straight to the point- "It's a sin against God." But that isn't always taken seriously is it (and for good reason)- so he has to come up with other reasons why it simply would not work (social reprucussions). Reasons that are not well-thought out, I might add.
"Have the courtesy to try to understand that people can disagree with you without them being stupid, ignorant fundamentalists."
The problem I have is simple. My mother is against gay marriages because she believes it's a sin. But at least she's being honest with herself, and not putting a spin on her beliefs. I feel that is what the author has done, and it disgusts me not that he has those opinions- but that he is twisting it to make it sound more acceptable than just "I read that it's bad in the Bible, so I oppose it." That is what is most upsetting to me.
~M
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: We all know that being gay is a sin according to Christians.
Arrgghh. Not all Christians! Not all Christians! Not all Christians! I tell you three times.
Otherwise, you go Mariann.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
"Well, StickyWicket, are you done bragging and thumping your chest yet? Shall we perhaps see how far you can pee?"
I'm very sorry. I know we want to be serious (and let this drop) but oh, my!
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Mariann, I stated on page one of this thread:
quote:Mormon's view marriage as a "saving" ordinance, like baptism. To get saved, you have to get married. And we believe God was the one who taught humans to get married, starting with Adam. Well, 2 people of the same sex getting "married" is about the biggest insult to the ordinance that I can think of.
Since then, I have refined that thought to be:
Religious and many non-religious people view marriage as sacred and godly/goodly. Many religious annd non-religious people view being gay as ungodly/ungoodly (a sin/unnatural).
So, gay people getting married demeans marriage and is an indication of more ungodliness/unnatraulness in our society.
More and more ungodliness/unnatraulness in our society means it is getting closer to going the way of all great nations before: it will die.
So I'm not afraid of saying I'm against it because I believe it is a sin. But I also don't believe in forcing anyone to do anything. If the people running the government decides to make it legal for gays to get married, fine. We live in a democracy where the most votes (sorta) wins. To me it will just mean the nation is chosing to be more sinful if it chooses to legalize gay marriage.
I can live with that. I wont be happy, but gay people are people too. And I like a few of them inspite of them being gay. Do I think they are the most sinful people on the planet? Not in the very least. I think many CEO's are much worse than gays. The whole food industry is run by greedy indiferennt people who could care less about anyone. I bring up the Nestle murderers:
Makes me dizzy skim reading it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: More and more ungodliness/unnatraulness in our society means it is getting closer to going the way of all great nations before: it will die.
I've got to admit that I find the LDS position that America's current standing in the world is a consequence of its godliness to be absolutely fascinating.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Thanks for the retraction, tern.
I imagine you'll find through your degree (as I did) that you must be *very* careful asserting "my professor said x" unless you are sure that it was exactly x that they said. Because people will jump on you. Lawyers - like to prove everyone wrong. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:my mission is not to discover and learn from others,
I don't know if you are still reading, Occasional, but this is so very much the opposite of how I feel. And yet, it would seem that our end goal is the same--to build Zion. To build unity and peace among people.
My response to that desire is to learn all I can about people who think differently from me, to see if the gaps can be bridged, to see if understanding and peace can be reached. Sometimes it is not possible at all and I, too, retreat in disappointment. But I really feel that understanding where other people are "coming from" is crucial to changing minds and hearts and learning to see eye to eye.
How often do people adamantly disagree with each other only to discuss and find that they actually fundamentally agree? It seems to me that it happens a lot. I like to think that people are more alike than different when you uncover all the superficial layers.
I have watched you (with sadness) as time and time again you have made it clear that you only want to associate with people who think like you. Isn't that what nauvoo is for? I actually dislike being there because I find the similarity stifling. I have other reasons for disliking it as well that are more poignant, but they have nothing to do with the topic at hand. (It has to do with the passive-aggressive behavior that rears its ugly head when open conflict is discouraged. I much prefer direct, but tactful assertiveness to passive-aggressive nonsense. Alas, it seems to come with Mormon Culture.)
I also am really glad that the LDS church has so many converts because it refreshes us when we get so "set in our ways". It challanges us to question what is Mormon Culture and what is Mormon Doctrine. It reminds us what the gospel is *really* about. I am far less interested in assimilating new converts into our "customs" and far more interested in learning a fresh, new point of view.
Being surrounded by people who think like us leads to stagnation. I have no problem in associating with like-minded people often or even more of the time for strength and support, but if it is all that we do or even all that we want, I think we lose out on so much.
I agree that it is disheartening and exhausting to verbally grapple with people who believe so differently about something you hold dear. I have to pull away from the fora at times when I feel exhausted. But I think that if we truly listen to what the other side is saying, try to understand where they are coming from, we will better be able to help them understand where we are coming from as well. Two sides can have opposing viewpoints and still understand why the other side believes as they do. Mutual understanding is a good thing. Even if you don't respect the viewpoint, you can still respect the person.
Posted by Mariann (Member # 8724) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: We all know that being gay is a sin according to Christians.
Arrgghh. Not all Christians! Not all Christians! Not all Christians! I tell you three times.
Otherwise, you go Mariann.
You're right, I should have said "most." I actually consider myself a Christian, and I'm not anti-gay. Sometimes I get caught up in the moment and speak of all Christians, when what I mean to say is "the majority."
~M
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
beverly, that was lovely. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Warning, you are about to enter a Mormon Speak zone:
Beverly, I think it has to do with our perception of how things are according to what we both believe about the End Days. You see this as a time to "get converts" and continue to grow from the people around us. Not there aren't a few who have converted from coversations here to bolster your position.
I submit that Hatrack represents for me the kind of people that are "past feeling" and Spiritually unrecoverable. The majority of voices here sound too much like Korihor and his followers. It represents for me the very society that the Book of Mormon warned would lead to the destruction of Nations. In other words, if I want proof that the Earth's Days are close to finalized, all I have to do is come here. That OSC allows such people to continually and in great numbers openly write is grevious. It amounts, I believe, to openly supporting those who go against the Church, and not in the usual sense of that statement. That is not a light thing to say.
I am no prophet, in authority, but I sense something VERY wrong at Hatrack as equally damning as not helping the poor and the sick. The time for sharing is coming to an end, especially for the Gentiles, and the time for building up a wall of defense is coming close behind. In more pop culture parlance; its time to circle the wagons or die like the rest.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:That OSC allows such people to continually and in great numbers openly write is grevious. It amounts, I believe, to openly supporting those who go against the Church, and not in the usual sense of that statement. That is not a light thing to say.
It's called freedom of speech. I am not referring to the civil right, I am referring to the fact that being free to say what you honestly think is a *good* thing. To force people to only speak like-minded things sounds... evil--to me.
quote:I am no prophet, in authority, but I sense something VERY wrong at Hatrack as equally damning as not helping the poor and the sick. The time for sharing is coming to an end, especially for the Gentiles, and the time for building up a wall of defense is coming close behind. In more pop culture parlance; its time to circle the wagons or die like the rest.
I honestly don't understand this statement. The people here at Hatrack are not inherently hostile, as you have so often stated. I know, I know, they have shown you hostility. I have seen it. But I know why they do it. The fact that you are not interested in listening to their side and understanding where they are coming from comes through in your words. It is offensive to talk to someone who isn't interested in understanding you. I certainly get offended when I talk to people who clearly aren't interested in understanding me--and yes, there are a few of those on Hatrack. But they truly are few.
I find that if you offer understanding to people, you will get it back. I think it's just part of the Golden Rule. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I am not referring to the civil right, I am referring to the fact that being free to say what you honestly think is a *good* thing. To force people to only speak like-minded things sounds... evil--to me.
And my statements aren't about civil rights. I tried not to be blunt, but you seemed to misunderstand my slightly subtle meaning. Lets just say it has to do with the Temple recommend and see if you understand.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I really don't care about the hostility. Its not about hostility to me or my words. I could care less about that. Rather, it is about the kinds of opinions that get top billing here. To paraphrase Jesus, "I have not come with peace, but with a sword." That I, and others like me, are crucified just comes with the territory. Call if self-rightiousness if you will, but that is just another way of saying I disagree with your passion.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sorry, I am at a loss. I do not know what you are referring to.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Does it surprise you that non-Mormons would think and believe differently than Mormons? Would you have them remain silent? Or not permit them access to this forum? All people here are already required to be respectful of others, if anyone crosses that line--no matter their viewpoint--they are called on it.
Again, is nauvoo exactly what you are wanting?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Apparently a Mormon running an establishment where non-Mormons are allowed to freely come in and talk with Mormons who have freely come in, and even disagree with them, is "openly supporting those who go against the church", in Occasional's view.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I drink tea, so yes. Even coffee on occasion.
(You said "practices contrary to").
Heck, I'm even relatively likely to have sex outside of marriage at some point in my life! (haven't yet, though, so I suppose that doesn't count).
I also know and am friends with some people who have used and continue to use assorted drugs on occasion, though I don't so much sympathize with that as not care, at least as far as marijuana is concerned, I'm against pretty much anything harder.
And lets see, I have a good number of Catholic friends (their teachings are definitely counter to those of the LDS church), and could even be said to "sympathize" with some of their precepts.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Nauvoo is NOT exactly what I want. Rather, I am looking for a group that is overwhelmingly Conservative in viewpoints and positions, regardless of disagreements. In other words, a place where 1 and out 5 posters were vehemently anti-gay (just as an example) rather than here where it is the opposite.
I have asked time and time again if anyone knows of Conservative Forums and not eve ONE has been listed. I promise you all that if I found at least one of them to my liking I would leave this place and NEVER come back. You can take that as a blood oath.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
fugu13, you know not of what you speak. As such, your flipancy is forgiven.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And I completely forgot!
I have gay friends, even gay relatives!
I love and support my Aunt Kathy and Aunt Amy, who have been living together in a loving, productive, societally valuable relationship for years .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Thank you so much for your indulgence. Would you care to point out someone on Hatrack, with evidence, who does as you specify?
If you're not about to, then you're just spouting hot air.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What I said was an official statement, and not my own words. Admittedly, it could be interpreted to exist for different reasons than why I put it here.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Huh. From didn't Tom state awhile ago that there are tons more Conservative blogs and grassroots on the net than Liberal? You'd think that there'd be a Conservative forum somewhere. [/aside]
Occasional, to me there is a world of difference between trying to understand where someone is coming from and supporting their viewpoint. You can understand and still disagree. Trust me, I do it all the time.
But unless you try to understand where someone else is coming from, you are not likely to get them to *want* to understand where you are coming from. I think understanding accomplishes far more than shutting people out.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You still specified it in this instance, and you're the one with the extant, unsupported statement:
quote:That OSC allows such people to continually and in great numbers openly write is grevious. It amounts, I believe, to openly supporting those who go against the Church, and not in the usual sense of that statement. That is not a light thing to say.
If its not a light thing to say, where's your evidence?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The time for sharing is coming to an end, especially for the Gentiles...
What I find sad, Occasional, is this sense I get from you that you think the "time for sharing" was a mistake in the first place, and just delayed the onset of the good stuff.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Fugu, knock it off. Occasional's statement *only* applies to Temple-recommend-carrying Mormons. I am sorry that wasn't clear. It wasn't meant for you.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Again, beverly, read my above post. Its great you have such faith and hope in people still. However, I have lost such and consider it close to the time when Missionaries will be commanded to come back home.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And if the blogs aren't sufficiently forum-ish, post on one or two whose posts you like asking for conservative forums.
Then honor your oath.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, and he's applying it to OSC, absent the decency of a single example. The mentions wrt myself were mere asides.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I concede you might be right TomD. Then again, what religious people (as a whole) haven't prayed for the Kingdom of God right here and right now?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(also, by the flow of posts he certainly seemed to be asking it of me, so I responded)
quote:Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?
I sort of wonder, though, how OSC could be said to be affiliated with all the people who post on a website just because he pays for it (since that's not true for most forum websites -- "the views expressed here are solely the views of . . . " and all that), or how he could be said to sympathize with those positions he clearly opposes in his writings. I don't see any other clauses in that statement, so I await an example of OSC "affiliating" with someone on this forum who fits the criteria, or OSC sympathizing with such a person's precepts.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:However, I have lost such and consider it close to the time when Missionaries will be commanded to come back home.
You know, I tend to agree with you that this *will* eventually happen, I just think that the time is still a ways off. I think there is still so much to be done in bringing the gospel to every tongue and people. It hasn't been fulfilled--yet.
Occasional, I do appreciate you explaining your POV. Particularly in regards to the temple recommend interview. I think I understand better why you believe as you do, though it is clear that you and I interpret the statement differently. I imagine that has to do with the fact that isolationism appeals to you while I find it repugnant (at this point, when there is still so much goodness in people in spite of differing belief).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The example is this very Forum. That you don't agree is not surprising.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Would you pray for the Kingdom of God as eagerly if it weren't presumably predicated on the destruction of those with whom you disagree?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
fugu, he was responding to me saying I was at a loss and didn't know what he was referring to. He was specifically answering my question. Sorry it was confusing.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
TomD, yes. Your comment suggests that I am more about Vengence than Love of God. You cannot see into my heart so I can't make you believe what I say is what I mean. For what it is worth, I would rather be born in Zion that see it come to fruitation.
Doctrinally speaking, I and those who believe in righteousness will suffer long and hard before sinners. Read Folk of the Fringe for a literary treatment of the subject.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Occasional -- it seems that you'd rather labor to help damn people than to help save them. It makes me sad.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So, to be clear, Occasional, you admit to "affiliat[ing] with [a] group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" by participating at Hatrack?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If it's any consolation, Occasional, I'd rather be born in Zion than die, myself. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
mph, what do you mean?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I believe that Zion would have no problem whatsoever embracing someone like Tom. I happen to really love and "ressonate" with Card's essays about Zion.
In other words, I think the noble and just of the earth will be spared God's vengance and be friendly with Zion even if they are not full participators in it because of difference in belief.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
It depends on what threshold of differences you have for people worthy of living there. I believe the differences will be doctrinal more than moral.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
*still wondering how owning these forums constitutes "affiliation" or "sympathizing", any more than owning a barber shop would*
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
OSC pays for it, and therefore supports it. He has the power to allow or not allow particular people to come and post. A Barbar shop doesn't always have that ability. But, if you have as much respect as you say you do, that particular comment you should try and avoid commenting on if you are not LDS. I only used it as beverly asked about it. Perhaps I should have just e-mailed her.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I don't admit to affiliating. I admit to Warning. There is a differnce.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The owner pays for a barber shop as well, and people go in there and talk about whatever as well.
Also, it is financial support you're talking to. Has anyone who has given money to either political party (both having as parts of their platforms at times things counter to Mormon beliefs) been in violation? In most considerations, financial support is not considered affiliation or sympathizing.
And no, if you wish to stop talking about it I'll stop responding, but as long as you expect to be able to have your word in, I expect to be able to have my word in response. I may also choose to stop, but I feel in no way compelled to do so, particularly when you are actively discussing in a public place.
Don't forget to check out those right wing blogs and ask about forums.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(Its worth noting that OSC has pretty firmly stated, at least in my readings of his posts, that these forums exist to support the fanbase for his works, not because he wants there to be a place for people to discuss, making them even more like the barber shop, where discussion is incidental to the "purpose" of the place).
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think the question of what constitutes "affiliation" is not a problem. What I am offended by is your snarkiness about the quote itself -- even if directed at me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
My snarkiness is not about the quote itself, its about your use of it.
And I happen to think you're wrong regarding affiliation, considering there seem to be several temple-recommend carrying mormons who disagree with you. If it were not a problem, they wouldn't be.
(edit: I believe I've seen mentioned that the Mormons in question have been to temple, but I couldn't point to posts saying that, so I could be wrong, of course. It is also the impression I've gotten seeing the interaction in this thread).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
edit: Post removed because I'm afraid that I said that out of anger or frustration -- never a good frame of mind to be in if you want to say something uncomfortable to your listener.
[ October 22, 2005, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That was your 6666th post.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Occasional,
quote:I submit that Hatrack represents for me the kind of people that are "past feeling" and Spiritually unrecoverable.
Funny, I thought it was doctrine that human beings don't know when someone is 'Spiritually unrecoverable'. I thought that we couldn't be sure if an indivudual had heard the Spirit, had their last chance, because that's not the sort of thing people know about other individuals.
You're right. You're no prophet, you're no authority. So you know what, Occasional? Stop acting like one. You're no authority. You're just a guy.
And you know what, I think it's pretty outrageous that you're calling OSC evil. That's what you're doing. He's permitting evil-and not just garden variety evil, but Garden variety evil, if you will, Evil that's a pretty direct affront to G-d. And you've criticized Tom Davidson before, too. Hypocrite.
And what does it say about you, Occasional, that you're still around this evil, damning place?
quote:Nauvoo is NOT exactly what I want. Rather, I am looking for a group that is overwhelmingly Conservative in viewpoints and positions, regardless of disagreements. In other words, a place where 1 and out 5 posters were vehemently anti-gay (just as an example) rather than here where it is the opposite.
I have asked time and time again if anyone knows of Conservative Forums and not eve ONE has been listed. I promise you all that if I found at least one of them to my liking I would leave this place and NEVER come back. You can take that as a blood oath.
Bullshit. Are you so inept, so stupid, that you cannot possibly find a home for yourself without the aid of such hopelessly evil people like us?
'Blood oath', indeed. How pathetically overdramatic.
quote:TomD, yes. Your comment suggests that I am more about Vengence than Love of God. You cannot see into my heart so I can't make you believe what I say is what I mean. For what it is worth, I would rather be born in Zion that see it come to fruitation.
And yet you don't hesitate to make such judgements about others.
What are you doing here? You don't speak for G-d, OSC, LDS members or the Church as a whole, conservatives, or Christians. But man, you never stop speaking for them. Can't you just get lost? You're lying when you say you can't find a forum of like-minded people, because it's easy. Go there.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This thread took a sharp dive into the weird.
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
I'm new. I don't have a lot of time on this board. But I have to say I think "unrecoverable" is a rather harsh word to use toward people who seem, by and large, to be just average people. And pretty nice ones. I admit there is a wide variation of beliefs here. Not everyone agrees. But this is hardly a den of internet iniquity. And the more we can talk to each other, laugh together, cry together, even sometimes argue, the better understanding we have of each other.
And that's all I'm saying on this thread.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm feeling helpful today. That last one, in particular, looks promising. Good luck!
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: More and more ungodliness/unnatraulness in our society means it is getting closer to going the way of all great nations before: it will die.
I've got to admit that I find the LDS position that America's current standing in the world is a consequence of its godliness to be absolutely fascinating.
Mormons absolutely believe this. It has been said (I don't know by who) that the LDS church could not have been created on any other nation. Then again, I've heard it said (by Hugh Nibley, very smart Mormon scholar who many Mormons dislike) that the opposite is true, that anywhere else LDS church would have been unmolested. But in America, things were just right. That is the argument for both sides anyway.
Still, our very own Book of Mormon teaches that as long as the people in America value righteousness (not just go to church, but good values) then the nation will never be defeated by an invading army.
[ October 22, 2005, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: human_2.0 ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Implying that affiliating on this forum is grounds for not going to the temple? I will try to be civil. Are you a bishop? You know, even bishops only have authority over *their* flock. Are you a stake president? Again, their authority is very small. You are assuming an authority that is reserved for the prophet of the world by even telling us none of us are worthy to go to the temple, which you have done by saying that this forum is a group of people who's teachings are against the church.
To be fair, I don't think Occasional did this. He explained why *he* feels uncomfortable being here and why he wouldn't run a forum the way OSC does. The difference is subtle, but the difference matters, to me.
We all have to decide how we interpret our own beliefs and convictions, and for Occasional, this is it.
I do think that as LDS we need to be careful not to "tell" each other how to live the gospel. When we share our opinions on how we think, it can feel like we are telling each other how to live when that is not our intent.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Perhaps there's a misunderstanding on what that question quoted earlier means. Affilliation means being a member of and giving monetary support to any group that purposefully seeks to oppose the Church. As for sympathization, it's one thing to believe abortion is okay. It's another thing to actually have an abortion (That's an example, but one that will prevent worthiness to enter the temple). Owning or using a forum where people exercise their right to voice their opinions will never make someone unworthy to enter the temple. If this forum's purpose was to spread Nazi propaganda (For example), that would be another thing. But this is an open forum. So quit squabling over who's worthy to enter the temple. No one here has a right to do that for anyone but themselves, and I honestly take offence that people are discussing such a matter.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:As for sympathization, it's one thing to believe abortion is okay.
An aside, the LDS church allows for abortion in certain circumstances. Though allowing isn't the same as condoning. You won't ever hear church authority say, "Yes, you *should* get an abortion in your case."
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: I honestly take offence that people are discussing such a matter.
It was bugging me to no end, so I deleted my post.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: making Gay Marriage illigal is a modern day Jim Crowe law and you should be ashamed of yourself and your god
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: OSC pays for it, and therefore supports it. He has the power to allow or not allow particular people to come and post. A Barbar shop doesn't always have that ability. But, if you have as much respect as you say you do, that particular comment you should try and avoid commenting on if you are not LDS.
Are you serious? Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
One of the most uncomfortable things about religious discussions is when people choose to share the most seriously exclusionary parts of their church's doctrine. These are the parts that say:
"We're right and everyone else is wrong."
and
"We believe that we're the only ones who will experience salvation (or in some cases FULL salvation or THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF salvation)."
I can see a place and time for discussing such matters, perhaps in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect.
But frankly, I do think it's bad form to discuss it here at Hatrack. For one thing, it can only lead to a rancorous argument in which people whose churches have such doctrines hurl claims at each other about how they know they are right and all others are wrong...
Secondly, if the "Card's living room" model is to hold any sway at all with us and dictate how we behave here, I think we would do well to stay as far from such discussions as we can in deference to our host and his family.
I don't need to know who here believes I and my family aren't going to achieve salvation. The only thing that knowledge can do is change my opinion of you, not my opinion of God or my faith.
It's not my place to call certain topics off limits. If our janitor and our hosts don't stop it, that's their call.
It has occurred to me, however, that the polite thing to do would be to impose a few limits on ourselves. And one such limit, seems to me, would be stop short of deliberately posting things that assert one's faith as one true and only faith, or to inform others of your views on their chances for salvation.
Finally, and this is the part specific to Occassional here: I'm not sure if "blood oath" holds a special meaning in your vernacular, but in the common usage it expresses a willingness to shed blood (yours and that of others) should your statement be proved false.
If that is the sense in which you meant it, Occassional, I simply ask that you retract your oath.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:And one such limit, seems to me, would be stop short of deliberately posting things that assert one's faith as one true and only faith, or to inform others of your views on their chances for salvation.
I see one problem here, which is that I can't even say "I'm an atheist" if I want to stick strictly to your proposed limit. The implication of atheism is that either I'm missing something or practically everyone else is at least somewhat delusional. I agree that it would be rude to say the latter in so few words even if I thought it was true, but saying "I'm an atheist" does, to a certain extent, imply it.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Bob, I did not intend such a harsh meaning behind my oath. In today's society where such a violent meaning is in fact illegal, I simply implied where people cut their hands and shake. In fact, in retrospect, such oaths are against my religion and therefore was said in the heat of the moment beyond my usual heat exchanges. I repent of such a drastic statement, although I will hold to it as a promise in less spectacular terms.
I've spent the day ruminating, Occasional, on WHY you spend time here with the Gentiles beyond redemption, the damned. I've come to the conclusion you must like warning the lds here of their danger. Or maybe to bring the damned to their senses? I suggest you start a thread, inform us of all that needs to be said, and THEN leave, after you've picked out which of those conservative sites will welcome you in the best. I wish you luck. Maybe I'll pray for you.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I actually answered that question on the other side Theaca. So, I will repeat it here. 1) I like OSC and his opinions. As such, I expected those who were here to be representative of those opinions, but found the opposite. 2) I kept thinking things would change and that I could make a difference. Obviously I was wrong.
And, I will concede one good thing about Hatrack that I can't say about anywhere else I have tried so far. There have been some terrific discussion topics here, even if I find the discussions beyond the pale of my tolerance levels.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Still, our very own Book of Mormon teaches that as long as the people in America value righteousness (not just go to church, but good values) then the nation will never be defeated by an invading army.
I guess as long as righteousness is covered by a multi-billion dollar defense budget.... How's that go? God is always on the side of he who has the biggest guns? Something like that. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I kept thinking things would change and that I could make a difference. Obviously I was wrong.
Of course you cannot make a difference -- you don't even try to connect to people. You don't want to bother understanding others, but you expect others to not only understand you, but to see the light and agree with you.
Humans just don't work that way.
As Thomas Monsen said "People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." You have shown exactly how much you care for the human beings on this forum.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Wow. I *heartily* agree.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
My make a difference is different from your make a difference. I am not talking about changing hearts and minds. I am talking about completely changing the dynamics of Hatrack. A call for metaphorical violent revolution! Alas, there was too much concentrated power in a particular segment of Hatrack for such possibility.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
*frown* A certain segment? So most people here are just like you? Odd, because I hardly ever see anyone acting the way you do.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Theaca "Alas" means something like "Sadly" or "However."
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
In other words, I had hoped there were more people like me lurking in the corners ready to take over and change this place. Particularly since OSC seems a heck of a lot more Conservative than most posters. What I found was that there WEREN'T more people like me, or aren't who are willing to participate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There are lots of us conservatives here.
We participate just fine.
edit: remove snarkyness. I'm having to do that a lot lately.
[ October 23, 2005, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Occ, the thing is, a lot of us do agree with you... to a point. But the way you come across makes us so uncomfortable that we hesitate to take up the banner with you. You are not the only person this happens with, and it isn't just on the conservative side of things either. I've seen it happen on both sides of various issues.
When someone comes across as not caring about what the other side thinks, they aren't going to get a lot of support from like-minded people. At least, not here on Hatrack where people tend to want to reach mutual understanding. On other forums where people don't care about coming across as combative, it isn't such a problem.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Here are the statistics gathered from another post about Gay Marriage that was about as long as this one.
Independant/Undecided 4 people
Liberal 26 people
Conservative 11
I tried to be as fair as possible with my picking. I gathered that those for gay-marriage are liberal and against Conservative. There were at least 3 newcomer/inconsistant posters for each side. That is 2 to 1 odds. However, I did not survey how many posts were liberal vs conservative, although the amount seemed to be 3 to 1 or higher liberal. My point is that statistically there isn't a lot of conservatives here. Although "a lot" can be a subjective numeration.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You know, on this particular issue it may be that the conservatives are less likely to talk about it because their reasoning is religion-based and cannot be "proved" in fact. There is, therefore, little point in discussing it.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I think that it is likely that there is reasons that are not religion based that would show that SSM is not a good idea. However, I think that most scientists and sociologists are biased against the idea and tend to discount results that would indicate that idea. I'm not claiming "grand conspiracy", but rather pointing out that existing political biases do tend to skew results.
I would agree completely that for most conservatives, our reasoning is highly influenced by our religious beliefs, which aren't useful when discussing issues with others who don't share the same beliefs. It makes me feel like we are talking past each other, and I usually end up dropping these discussions - they don't have the tools to convince me, and I don't have the tools to convince them. Gets rather pointless after awhile, no matter how intelligent the participants are on both sides.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Occassional, it seems to me that:
1) You expected to become an instant leader by posting inflammatory rhetoric.
2) You don't want to hear opinions other than your own.
3) You are being inconsistent in how many others like you would need to be here before you would say that the place is "good." First you said there's no-one like you. Now, you've identified at least 11 conservatives in a thread where there's obvious reasons for many conservatives not to post (i.e., it turns into a defense of religion thread).
As to #1, mph has said it far better than I can how your style impeded your progress here to date.
As to #2, if you don't hear opinions different from your own, you will not know if you're a leader either. And why is that constant agreement so important? Will you and your like-minded discussants sit around zinging imaginary opponents and then slapping each other on the back going "you know, you're right!" Or correcting each others minor departures from some imagined Conservative "platform?"
As to #3, real leaders work with what they have and build from there. People here listen to each other's opinions and value them, no matter what differences in political ideology they start from. You've as much as told us that you think that's a sign of the Apocalypse and near as I can tell, you weren't joking when you said it.
That's not exactly going to "build" anything, and I'm not surprised that people haven't rallied to you if your posts hide that sort of judgement.
Thankfully, God is my judge. God is both wiser and more merciful than you have shown yourself to be. I prefer God's judgement.
SPECIAL TO TWINKY: I think the mere act of stating what belief group one self-identifies with is never a problem. I know plenty of atheists who sit in bemused silence when religious discussions stray into matters of faith (i.e., without proof). I know some that respectfully ask for proof. I know very few who just blurt out "well, you're all a bunch of sadly deluded nincompoops." Suspecting you think that of us, and having you shove it in our faces are two very different things.
Same with any of the religious folks. Knowing which ones of you believe the rest are deluded and therefore damned and having you insist on telling us at every turn are two VERY different things.
The one allows discussion to continue. The latter, at least for me, ends it in hurry.
Hey Occ: Maybe that's it! Do you really want to have discussions? You said you liked the topics, but never the content of the discussions. See, thing is, many of us like the discussions. Who are you to say we're all wrong to enjoy them? Maybe you just don't like conversation. At any rate, I'll keep my own counsel on what I enjoy.
I hope you find a site you like better soon.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That OSC allows such people to continually and in great numbers openly write is grevious. It amounts, I believe, to openly supporting those who go against the Church, and not in the usual sense of that statement. That is not a light thing to say.
quote: 1) I like OSC and his opinions.
Sure you do, kid.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:God fights on the side of the best artillery. -Napoleon, Marshal of France
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tern, I guess from my perspective there really isn't a lot of (if there is any) scientific evidence to oppose SSM. To say that there is evidence but it is not being acknowledged is too much like starting with a theory and setting out to "prove" it is true. Even if you believe that is the case, it is very unscientific and you can't have much of a discussion about it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
tern, there are also some fairly valid religious reasons for supporting SSM or at least civil unions. It seems to me that every person who uses Scripture (in particular) to call for a ban is using some portions of God's word and ignoring others. This is especially true of Christians who, in the New Testament, have plenty of messages in there about love and refraining from judgement, and even stuff about separating government from religion and vice versa (depending on how one reads it, of course).
We do have trouble talking to one another if, included in the religious discussion, there's also an appeal to authority (the Pope, the LDS prophet(s) and so on) because authority to one person is "just another human" to everyone else. The words that bind one person are little better than noise to the person who is not a co-religionist (if they hear them at all).
This stuff doesn't JUST boil down to arguments between religious and non-religious people. It also includes religious people trying to find a valid secularly-based argument to support their views, and religious people trying to convince each other that one appeal to authority has merit where another does not. AND THEN there are the faith-based arguments. And the arguments based on vague concerns for the future of society. And the arguments based on what little data are out there.
I submit that we CAN stop talking past each other if we do a few things:
1) Listen and try to address the other person's points in a language they WILL understand.
2) Admit when our positions are based on something other than hard facts.
3) Admit, further, when we are taking a position out of vague fears that have nothing to do with our religion, faith, or whatever, and are just "gut."
All of that is really difficult to do. I think some religious folks have it hardest because they are not in the habit of separating out Scriptural arguments from faith-based ones, from appeals to authority. It all comes under one giant heading of "belief" for some among us. In that context, a negative statement about any one piece of it threatens the entire structure and seems like an attack on a person's faith. Never comfortable.
I submit, however, that 99% of the time, the attack is in the person's own head and it's precisely because they aren't looking at the separate aspects of their own opinions, and view it ONLY as a monolithic entity.
That other 1% of the time, however, there really are personal attacks going on. Right here in River City! And that spells TROUBLE.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Still, our very own Book of Mormon teaches that as long as the people in America value righteousness (not just go to church, but good values) then the nation will never be defeated by an invading army.
I guess as long as righteousness is covered by a multi-billion dollar defense budget.... How's that go? God is always on the side of he who has the biggest guns? Something like that.
Well, I suppose things are different now. We believe God was on America's side during the revolutionary war up to WWII. Since then, all wars haven't really been about US soil (except maybe the 9/11 attack--but this thread is about SSM, so we don't need to even discuss that one).
Anyway, I can't think of a single non-religious reason against SSM. And since my opposition to it is centered on religions values, I don't want to try to hide them behind non-religions reasons, because then they are easily debunked.
I could go both ways on whether or not the government should ban it. I don't think government should make religious laws. In the Book of Mormon as much is said when a prophet decides the people need to be preached to. That is, it would be better to try to preach to gay people than make laws against them. Although that sounds funny in todays context.
On the other hand, I remember an article by OSC where he said the prohibition "worked". It worked at breaking the habit of Americans from going to the pub and then going home and beating their wifes, a habit we picked up from England, and a habit they still have (I think that is what he said). I don't know how true that statement is, but it could support banning SSM. Then again, I don't really see SSM people beating their.... partner. So maybe it doesn't apply.
I think the thing that will really piss people off if SSM is made legal is when gay's get the right to adopt children.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
In many states gay people can adopt children. Unsurprisingly, their children grow up just as well adjusted as everybody elses.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
human,
I would only caution that there IS real value in building up expertise in an area before making assumptions or drawing conclusions based on data analyses. It often turns out that today's startling or important result is due to factors that the reasearchers failed to consider, like differential reporting rates.
Anyone wishing to compare rates of spousal abuse today versus the 1950's would do well to make the effort to understand reporting rates for this crime during the two decades and attempt to adjust the numbers before running analyses and drawing conclusions.
The other thing to ALWAYS consider is denominator effects. It turns out that many assumptions go into the making of your typical denominator in a rate published by the government. It's not enough to know how much under-reporting one could expect in the two decades of interest (that would affect the numerator, of course). One also needs to know that the denominator was collected/estimated the same exact way for both decades of interest.
The point is that if one were to compare statistics compiled in the 1950's with statistics compiled in the 1990's, both the numerator and denominator may have changed operational definition, and the numerator may have a different level of under-reporting.
It is at least worth considering that sloppy research could produce data that support ones pet hypothesis (or someone's pet hypothesis) and not stop digging just because the answer fits the conclusion one is hoping to draw.
Too many researchers fail to do this. They leave it to others to correct their flawed work. Sadly, there is often a publication bias against publishing negative results or failures to replicate. The end result being that stuff that "shocks" or seems "newsworthy" gets published and the countering data rarely sees the light of day.
It has happened plenty of times in my own field (traffic safety and experimental psychology). In areas where the data are likely to be less reliable (like old data from crime reports), I suspect the problems are even more prevalent.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I'm interested to know in what way BlackBlade's life will actually change or even be slightly inconvenienced by having to "abide by" a law that will give my relationship with Chris legal protection.
What legal freedom are you enjoying now that you won't have then?
And if you had read my vegan social metaphor, I would ask "what legal freedoms were being violated by say a new come guest eating a BLT in front of the other guests?"
Well, I did read your metaphor, and still I asked the question. Perhaps that implies that your metaphor didn't answer the question for me. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:On the other hand, I remember an article by OSC where he said the prohibition "worked". It worked at breaking the habit of Americans from going to the pub and then going home and beating their wifes, a habit we picked up from England, and a habit they still have (I think that is what he said). I don't know how true that statement is, but it could support banning SSM. Then again, I don't really see SSM people beating their.... partner. So maybe it doesn't apply.
I don't know that you could reasonably claim that we had "broken the habit" in terms of that. There's was plenty of drunked wife-beating post-Prohibition. Also, the "going out to the bars after work and coming home drunk" was a common practice post-Prohibition. You might be able to make the case that there was a lessening in the prevelance of this behavior, but it was certainly still around. Besides that, I don't necessarily know that data pre-Prohibition provides anywhere near enough coverage or that what's availible is reliable enough to support a valid comparison in rates of something like this.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Well, it goes back to say to me that I haven't heard any concrete evidence banning SSM. As far as children go, there are enough "normal" marriages that raise children badly... I am just waiting to see if people will make a huge fuss about it. I'm use to the parent types (not me obviously) worrying about how everyone else raises their children.
Posted by Kent (Member # 7850) on :
I never anticipated this topic to go nine pages, I know that is a record for me. My mom will be so proud!
Posted by John Van Pelt (Member # 5767) on :
I am late to this thread and have only read pages 1, 7, 8, and 9....
But I did read the first half of the document Kent originally linked to.
Up through (Warner's) page 6, except for a couple of references to LDS-specific beliefs and a single reference to 'bearing' children (as opposed to raising, developing, nurturing), I saw nothing unsurprising, nor anything that in my mind couldn't apply to SSM.
I am neither gay, nor Mormon; but I have been married, and plan to be so again. I think C. Terry Warner's definitions of marriage -- its traditions, contracts, way of life, ideals -- are pretty solid, pretty inspiring. Not everyone would agree with every syllable for their own marriage, and far fewer (as he acknowledges) live up to such ideals.
The section on it being a religious covenant -- well, for religious people, that's fine too. Surely unreligious people can be married; and I agree that at some level, woven into the social contract, the ancestral connection between the legal vow and the religious vow is relevant. That society holds "marriage" as an institution to be a "sacred bond" -- one that should never be entered into lightly or with ulterior motive, and that is intended to be lifelong. The most serious thing of all serious things. "Sacred" in a secular sense, if you follow -- what Warner calls "in good conscience."
So, as a package, I buy Warner's sketch:
"ideals of commitment, trust, fidelity, child-rearing, kindness, and sacrifice"
"a covenant with God, or in good conscience"
"partners covenant to become as one"
"It is with one’s natural complement that the covenant is made"
"rearing a posterity together"
But I repeat -- and this applies to almost every word of all the detail he provides on these points -- I don't see any difference for gay couples who wish to marry.
I think it is key to the (pro-SSM) debate, to be able to say "this is what traditional marriage is," and then for a gay couple to say, "yep, tha's wha' ah'm talkin' about!"
The most controversial item is probably the "natural complement" one. But if you take all the references to man-woman (of which there are actually very few) in that section, and replace them with partner A-partner B (given that I understand that not all, or even most, gay couples consist in a 'feminine' partner and a 'masculine' partner, but acknowledging that deep differences and complements unite them, as with men and women), the whole thing is just fine:
quote:This partner A-partner B duality has deep practical dimensions. Partner A and Partner B think and feel differently in ways no socialization can change. Each has his or her own singular and irreplaceable contributions to make to their union and their family. This fact of nature makes marriage burdensome and frustrating if we are worldly—our partner seems to demand that we give up what we think we need to be happy. But if we are seeking to be faithful to our marriage covenant, this same call to sacrifice self-interest in favor of our partner and our marriage is precisely what will stretch us enough to become, individually and together, more virtuous, loving, long-suffering, and forgiving. In regards to our character and personality, it will quite literally stretch us out of shape—our worldly, self-absorbed shape—as it transforms us into beings who begin to resemble their highest destiny. Though it does not seem so to the worldly, the marriage partners flourish individually and together, and rear flourishing children, in proportion to the moral and spiritual requirements to which they rise. And the requirements for this transformation of human beings are nowhere more completely provided than by the complementary and demanding differences of two people in a traditional marriage.
Let us take a commonplace example. Trying to get along with each other as best they can, however awk-wardly, two relatively immature people will find themselves undergoing changes, little by little. Each will become more long-suffering and patient. Each will sacrifice. In spite of himself, the partner who likes football will discover that he can actually live without Monday Night Football. Alternatively, you know married people who have remained as they began, selfish and miserable and fundamentally lonely—but you have not met two people striving to live their marriage covenant who have remained that way. Entering a traditional marriage is deliberately choosing to live according to a way of life that will elevate the partners far above worldly self-indulgence, break down their selfishness, and install the other’s needs as the primary concern in each of their hearts.
[Bold edits mine.]
As for the children section, there is no exception with respect to "bearing" made for infertile couples or couples who do not wish to raise children, that does not equally apply to gays -- and all the rest about "raising" and "rearing" applies equally to all.
Anyway, that is my take. I find it not just interesting but dramatic how well a traditionalist's screed presents a model for marriage that works for all. None of the carefully worked substance, the so-called "benefits," of marriage need to be abandoned to accommodate SSM. They all survive intact (again, short of direct religious edict regarding same-sex relations), and no distinction has been drawn for any such benefit or ideal to show that it issues from, or accrues to, specific combinations of biological gender exclusively.
3 minor edits: punctuation, word choice, grammar.
[ October 26, 2005, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: John Van Pelt ]
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I really don't get the 'ick' factor at all. I'm a straight woman, a happy, life-long monogamist at this point, and I don't see it. I think I'd be a little bit put off if any of my friends started making out in front of me, but a chaste smooch or sitting close or whatever... no. Not even if they were a gay couple.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)