posted
I made no statements that the forcing was equal, just that there was equally forcing on both sides. Does that make sense? I mean that both sides are, according to some on both sides, forcing a belief on others.
Not that the necessary imposition of that force ends up being equal, just that there's forcing on both sides.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see allowing SSM as forcing a belief. It's not forcing anyone to do anything. At all. Actually, okay. It forces courts/insurance companies/the government to treat the partners as if they're legally married.
It does not force anyone else to do anything. Just like drinking being legal does not force anyone to drink.
posted
"Just as justifiable" does not make sense with the explanation immediately above. As far as I understand the meaning of the language, it refers to equality of reason, not of force, and that is the only phrase of your post I had a problem with.
I'm not trying to paint you as a bad guy in this, but I do suggest you look more carefully at what you write, especially if you think what you wrote immediately above conveys even remotely the sense I think most people would take from what you wrote that I originally quoted. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is all I have to add about the argument, "SSM now, legal bestiality later." Slippery slopes are often logical fallacies, but even a casual study of history, especially when it comes to law, shows that a decision with a goal in mind, OFTEN has unforeseen consequences.
The 13th and 14th amendments led to segregation, the 18th amendment led to a huge increase in crime. Read all about this in Freakonomics. SPOILERS! The author speculates that Roe V Wade led to a big decrease in crime about 20 years later, or at least it staved off a huge increase in crime that was projected to occur.
All I am trying to say is that if you state, "SSM will not cause ANYTHING undesirable to happen," you are being just as obtusely prophetic as those who say, "SSM will lead to fire and brimestone!"
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're correct that what I wrote failed to convey the meaning I intended. However, I maintain that there is force on both sides, for some people, of this issue. That is seperate from the question of how much force is being used. It could apply if I throw a rock at you, and you shoot a gun at me, as if we both throw rocks at each other.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see allowing SSM as forcing a belief. It's not forcing anyone to do anything. At all. Actually, okay. It forces courts/insurance companies/the government to treat the partners as if they're legally married.
It does not force anyone else to do anything. Just like drinking being legal does not force anyone to drink.
This is your perspective. However, some people believe that they are being forced to live in a society which recognizes SSM as legitimate, should such a thing become (as I think it should) legitimate. It's easy to say, "No one's forcing them to," which is a logical rejoinder, but it can equally be said of SSM proponents.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I'm saying is that no one is going to make you, personally, recognize SSM as a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God.
Just like no one is going to make you, personally, drink alcohol, buy a firearm, watch a pornographic film, make use of modern medicine, or wear jeans and a t-shirt, all of which are things to which some religion(s) object(s).
Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only to members of the same sex.
And if only gay people were allowed to wed would you feel the same way? cuz, hey, you're not denied equal rights. You can still marry a man. Just not the person you love.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn No one is forcing them to live here.
Now which side are you arguing for?
Dear God you jumped on that fast. I deleted that almost the second after I posted it.
The point I was trying to emphasize was that "forcing" someone to live in a society tolerant of the gay lifestyle is a silly argument. They are still living together, still having sex, still kissing on street corners in full view of children. They choose to live in this society, and all that comes with it, all that comes with the freedom of personal choice and the lack of repressions we're supposed to be fighting against.
Toleration is a bit of a leap from acceptance. I tolerate a sinus infection, but I ACCEPT SSM. I don't get how extended secular rights to homosexual couples is any more "accepting" of the "gay lifestyle" than the current status they "enjoy." It does nothing to change the status quo for anyone other than the people who want those rights.
Edit to add: We're technically "forcing" them to live in a secular society, which apparently isn't thrilling to a lot of them, in the same sense that I'm "forced" to live in a society that gives Pat Robertson a rather loud bullhorn to speak with. If we're going to create separate but equal for gays, let's destroy the first amendment to shut up crazed religious bigots too. I want my piece of the civil rights restraint pie.
quote:Raping children in the street? You seriously equate that with civil unions Scott?
Lyrhawn, take a minute to read what Scott wrote. Specifically:
"I despise this type of fear-mongering. It doesn't do anything useful. You can't even sell it as speculative fiction."
He was condemning people who make that type of argument.
Why bother to make the purposefully inflammatory statement then?
I apologize for jumping on you so quickly Scott, and unfairly. I should've taken more than ten seconds to compose a response rather than go in the heat of the moment, but it's been a long day already, and a slow day at work this morning turned into a live action version of this discussion with far less reasonable people, so I was already cooking a bit. It doesn't excuse my behavior, but I hope it explains it.
I think your point would've been better served had you left out the intentionally inflammatory statement. It's not like it served as a counterpoint to anything I said. I was speaking in hypothetical abstractions, not making accusations, or speaking as if representing accusations.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hehe, I didn't think I jumped on it so fast. I just clicked on the last page of the thread, saw it there and hit quote. Must have been funny timing, thats all. I just thought it was a weird statement to make. If the same thing was said about those same sex couples that want to be married, I imagine it wouldn't have been given a pass.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only to members of the same sex.
And if only gay people were allowed to wed would you feel the same way? cuz, hey, you're not denied equal rights. You can still marry a man. Just not the person you love.
You beat me to it Pix, I was going to say the same thing. I once read OSC give the same argument, and it irked me then too.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This is all I have to add about the argument, "SSM now, legal bestiality later." Slippery slopes are often logical fallacies, but even a casual study of history, especially when it comes to law, shows that a decision with a goal in mind, OFTEN has unforeseen consequences.
The 13th and 14th amendments led to segregation, the 18th amendment led to a huge increase in crime. Read all about this in Freakonomics. SPOILERS! The author speculates that Roe V Wade led to a big decrease in crime about 20 years later, or at least it staved off a huge increase in crime that was projected to occur.
All I am trying to say is that if you state, "SSM will not cause ANYTHING undesirable to happen," you are being just as obtusely prophetic as those who say, "SSM will lead to fire and brimestone!"
Yes, but being a country of self-professed freedom lovers, if we cannot predict anything concretely detrimental happening to society, in this life, I would think the most principled stance (from a citizen's point of view) would be to recommend an attempt at more freedom, sort of a benefit-of-the-doubt thing, and then amend as necessary later, if there are unforeseen repurcussions.
This is, of course, negated if your rationale is more akin to Scott's. At that point you are no longer trying to "play within the system." Which is something I disagree with but, so far as the opinion is professed openly, is fine to me.
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Hehe, I didn't think I jumped on it so fast. I just clicked on the last page of the thread, saw it there and hit quote. Must have been funny timing, thats all. I just thought it was a weird statement to make. If the same thing was said about those same sex couples that want to be married, I imagine it wouldn't have been given a pass.
I don't think the statement REALLY works both ways. Can you appreciate the irony of homosexuals fleeing the country to escape persecution and seeking freedom elsewhere? Talk about abandoning the principles this nation was founded on. How could we ever stand up and claim to be the land of the free? I guess Canada is the land of the free now.
But I saw the dual uses of the statement and deleted it almost immediately because of the almost built in confusion within.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but being a country of self-professed freedom lovers, if we cannot predict anything concretely detrimental happening to society, in this life, I would think the most principled stance (from a citizen's point of view) would be to recommend an attempt at more freedom, sort of a benefit-of-the-doubt thing, and then amend as necessary later, if there are unforeseen repurcussions.
I don't think that follows. Many people think the burden should be on those desiring a change to demonstrate that its harms won't outweigh the benefits.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This is all I have to add about the argument, "SSM now, legal bestiality later." Slippery slopes are often logical fallacies, but even a casual study of history, especially when it comes to law, shows that a decision with a goal in mind, OFTEN has unforeseen consequences.
The 13th and 14th amendments led to segregation, the 18th amendment led to a huge increase in crime. Read all about this in Freakonomics. SPOILERS! The author speculates that Roe V Wade led to a big decrease in crime about 20 years later, or at least it staved off a huge increase in crime that was projected to occur.
All I am trying to say is that if you state, "SSM will not cause ANYTHING undesirable to happen," you are being just as obtusely prophetic as those who say, "SSM will lead to fire and brimestone!"
Yes, but being a country of self-professed freedom lovers, if we cannot predict anything concretely detrimental happening to society, in this life, I would think the most principled stance (from a citizen's point of view) would be to recommend an attempt at more freedom, sort of a benefit-of-the-doubt thing, and then amend as necessary later, if there are unforeseen repurcussions.
This is, of course, negated if your rationale is more akin to Scott's. At that point you are no longer trying to "play within the system." Which is something I disagree with but, so far as the opinion is professed openly, is fine to me.
-Bok
One of the reasons I think Roe V Wade happened was that people could effectively demonstrate what was already happening at the time in regards to abortions. People were already doing them and their effects COULD be studied and shown.
I think the weight of evidence is on the SSM supporters to demonstrate that there is a real problem that SSM solves ethically.
I'd be interested in reading a well put together study on the effects of SSM in the short and long term. I personally do not know which country has allowed it the longest. Nor do I have any hard data on how allowing SSM has directly affected anything.
I was merely stating that I don't believe in erring on the side of freedom, as we do not HAVE to err at all if we are careful about things. If we can't make a good decision, I say wait on it even in the face of injustice until we CAN make a good decision.
Thorny Analogy:
The unfavorable outcome of being late does not warrant hasty driving as the consequences of such driving while not always unfavorable often can be.
There is no time limit on solving the SSM question. Even if we ought to make an intelligent decision as fast as reasonably possible.
That line of reasoning led me to vote against the legislation that passed in Utah banning SSM. I feel like it was a VERY hasty decision by the people of Utah.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a legal contract uniting two parties into one. I don't see what's the big deal. If religious folk don't want to have gay people married in their churches that's fine, just don't interfer with my buisness arrangements.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, but being a country of self-professed freedom lovers, if we cannot predict anything concretely detrimental happening to society, in this life, I would think the most principled stance (from a citizen's point of view) would be to recommend an attempt at more freedom, sort of a benefit-of-the-doubt thing, and then amend as necessary later, if there are unforeseen repurcussions.
I don't think that follows. Many people think the burden should be on those desiring a change to demonstrate that its harms won't outweigh the benefits.
OK, and in your estimation, Dag, is that even possible in this case? I mean how can this be demonstrated except in doing it? I've personally addressed every single secular arguement against SSM that has been expressed on this forum (unless someone snuck one by me while I wasn't looking) and the other side has been very hard-pressed to come up with compelling non-religious arguements even though I've actively sought them out on this forum. I'll grant one's religious convictions are certainly compelling for them, but I don't think that's anywhere near a trump card in a secular, multi-cultural, poly-religious society. As far as the thought exeriment goes, I feel my side has won hands down. The other side can't offer more than a vague "who knows what will happen". So how do we demonstrate further unless we are willing to take the change in practice?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, I guess in part because I don't see to many concrete negatives, especially of the type that infringe on another person's liberty. I'd need examples of concrete harm people fear, even better if it can be shown to infringe on someone's liberty. Most that I have seen HAVE been argued, at least to a stalemate, if not a definitive answer either way.
I guess it's to the point now that people throw out the term "harm" without any examples. How do you argue against a concept that has no context? --
It isn't the same, I suppose; it just feels like it to me.
quote:I have to wonder, how long do states like MA and NJ have to not show any of the signs that OSC and others say they will (e.g. turning into places like Arkansas and Alabama in regards to their divorce rate) before we're allowed to disregard their dire warnings?
Opinion. An opinion I share, but opinion nonetheless. Actually, the opinion I hold would be more accurately stated: neither state nor federal governments should be in the business of recognizing marriages, instead recognizing only civil unions which should be granted to any legal adult parties.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Dag is talking about proving a negative, but perhaps something along the lines of whether it is valid to apply the precautionary principle to pro-SSM legislation. Additionally, if it is applied to SSM legislation, which viewpoint does it more closely support. Of course, I could be completely off-base, since I am not Dag Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:in your estimation, Dag, is that even possible in this case?
I don't know.
quote:So how do we demonstrate further unless we are willing to take the change in practice?
I think the successful way is to continue to wrench the legal aspects of marriage away from the cultural aspects. Legally, it's these rights, duties, and privileges. That's it. Nothing more.
Then encourage (socially, not legally) other institutions to take up the slack of defining the non legal aspects of marriage. Heck, maybe even allow different organizations to register different default rules related to each of the duties, rights, and privileges as they relate to the spouses. If marriage is a contractual relationship, then there's no reason to disallow private forms of the contract.
One of my big problems today is that "government" and "society" have been merged too much.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to wonder, how long do states like MA and NJ have to not show any of the signs that OSC and others say they will (e.g. turning into places like Arkansas and Alabama in regards to their divorce rate) before we're allowed to disregard their dire warnings?
Divorce rates are not the only way we should be gauging the success of America's marital practices.
By that logic we should simply blindly turn to arranged marriages coupled with a crushing disdain for divorce as a means to keep our marriages stable.
Divorce might or might not go up in the long term if SSM are allowed. If SSM were shown to be 100% without divorce the gross divorce rate in every state could still go down based on completely unrelated factors.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think the weight of evidence is on the SSM supporters to demonstrate that there is a real problem that SSM solves ethically.
There are over 1000 privileges/responsibilities that are enjoyed by married couples, provided by federal and local governments. These range from visitation rights of children and sick loved ones to financial/tax implications (inheritance being a major subset of this). While many of these privileges can be written up in special legal documents, these documents don't necesarily have the same legal standing as existing precedent, and ultimately can (and has) lead to enforcement being a matter of judicial whim (yes, that could be considered irony).
To me, that is the ethical question involved.
The institution that gays are looking for is exactly like legal, secularly-licensed marriage, and the only difference is one that doesn't create any added complications with the existing institution (as one might argue is the case with polygamy), IMO. In fact, the good governor of MA complicated it out of spite when he mandated town clerks to use forms that said "Party A" and "Party B", instead of leaving husband and wife, or even "Spouse A" and "Spouse B". I know, because I got married a year ago (a year after the MA SJC ruling), and filled them out.
If it's absolutely necessary, I think civil unions can be an acceptable first step.
posted
Thank you Dag. That's actually a really good answer to my question and gives me a bit to think about.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to wonder, how long do states like MA and NJ have to not show any of the signs that OSC and others say they will (e.g. turning into places like Arkansas and Alabama in regards to their divorce rate) before we're allowed to disregard their dire warnings?
Divorce rates are not the only way we should be gauging the success of America's marital practices.
By that logic we should simply blindly turn to arranged marriages coupled with a crushing disdain for divorce as a means to keep our marriages stable.
Divorce might or might not go up in the long term if SSM are allowed. If SSM were shown to be 100% without divorce the gross divorce rate in every state could still go down based on completely unrelated factors.
So is there any evidence you would consider sufficient to prove that SSM don't harm society? How do you define harming society?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Straight people didn't have to wait to prove anything before they could get married. Neither did we make mixed race couples prove that their unions wouldn't harm society. We made that change because it was right.
Porter,
Do you believe that it is less "sinful" for a gay person to marry someone with whom they are not in love than to marry someone of the same gender? That they convince (or trick) someone into marrying them without that bond?
If so than you and I have different ideas about what is meant by a loving God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if only gay people were allowed to wed would you feel the same way? cuz, hey, you're not denied equal rights. You can still marry a man. Just not the person you love.
A society in which homosexual unions were the basic unit of society would be so different in so many ways that I can't really begin to imagine how I would feel about it, because I wouldn't be me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if only gay people were allowed to wed would you feel the same way? cuz, hey, you're not denied equal rights. You can still marry a man. Just not the person you love.
A society in which homosexual unions were the basic unit of society would be so different in so many ways that I can't really begin to imagine how I would feel about it, because I wouldn't be me.
Well, try. Because that is how we are expecting gay people to live.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's interesting about that, Porter, is that I agree with you -- and agree with you that denying homosexuals the opportunity to marry prevents them from ever really being themselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
m_p_h, that's conjecture. It may not be as different. I don't see why it need be that different.
-Bok
EDIT: I will add that I would expect us to feel it is much different, especially if it flipped from something like our current society. I just don't think one should accept that assumption out of hand.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find this response immensely insensitive and flippant. I can explain why if it isn't obvious.
That response is at the heart of why I don't think it's a civil rights issue.
Please explain. To me then it sounds like you are saying not only are pro-SSM marriage arguements completely invalid, but that there's not even an issue. That response seems to illegitimize my very existence. "Oh, there's no problem since you could marry a woman. The fact that you're gay is the problem."
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
KMB: I believe that a person who has same-sex attraction could get married without it being a bad idea, but not without them being upfront and honest about it with their spouse.
You already know that I believe that homosexual relationships are inherently sinful.
quote:If so than you and I have different ideas about what is meant by a loving God.
You and I have different ideas about most things pertaining to religion. But you already knew that too.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thank you Dag. That's actually a really good answer to my question and gives me a bit to think about.
I'm glad you got that, because it seemed hopelessly muddled to me. It's hinting at something much bigger that I've been trying to formulate for over a decade now. It relates to my distaste for government funding of personal expression, my desire for school choice, my view on same-sex marriage, the type of public support the boy scouts should receive and on what basis, my mistrust of tax codes as a way to encourage and discourage behavior, pharmacist choice, and a host of other issues.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, BB and I just had a conversation (here's another, not with BB) about the ex-gay movement and how, in it's 30 or so years of their concerted efforts to turn religious gay people who really wanted to change into heterosexuals, they've yet to be able to give evidence for success in any matter except for a questionable and vanishingly small sample. In this thread, I demonstrated that I was aware and well versed in these "therapies", which would go along with my constant demonstration that, especially when I'm talking about psychological subjects, I am well versed in the things I represent myself as well-versed in. And yet, he responded with:
quote:Thats your opinion, I think its sweepingly hasty in judgement. I seriously doubt you have extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal. For me to agree with you I would have to actively disagree with what I honestly believe is true. That human beings can become whatever they choose to be. You can believe that its impossible for any homosexual to cultivate feelings of attraction towards members of the opposite gender, and I would simply disagree with you.
I have to wonder, how much is it going to take?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: KMB: I believe that a person who has same-sex attraction could get married without it being a bad idea, but not without them being upfront and honest about it with their spouse.
What about someone with no opposite-sex attraction. And why would someone enter into such a partnership?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bokonon: And that's why I am pretty close to being sure that civil unions are a good idea. Though I get stuck up on the question of letting homosexual couples adopt children. But thats a discussion for another time.
blacwolve: Do you want me to postulate on ways SSM COULD harm society or just factors that in general are bad for society? I have admitted earlier to wishing I had hard data for the former (both for or against) and I am pretty sure you don't need my help for the latter. But just in case.
Higher crime rates, drops in literacy, economical decline, infant mortality increases, life expectancy drops, standard of living decline, scientific spending decline. There are more but those are the easiest to acknowledge as being unfavorable.
kmbboots: Thats a flimsy argument because we are acting on precedent in regards to marriage, its up to those who want to change the status quo that have to demonstrate why its a good thing, its not the status quo's responsibility to defend itself every evening. If we didn't have institutionalized marriage (There are plenty of countries that DONT have it) within the US it WOULD be up to heterosexual relationships to demonstrate why its ethical for them to get assistance from the government. Usually the fact heterosexuals raise the next generation of Americans is cited as grounds for giving them assistance.
Amalgamates definitely did show there was an injustice to preventing their marriages from being accepted. They could demonstrate through hard statistics and many years of history that amalgamate relationships do work and do not adversely effect society in any way that can be determined.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, BB and I just had a conversation (here's another, not with BB) about the ex-gay movement and how, in it's 30 or so years of their concerted efforts to turn religious gay people who really wanted to change into heterosexuals, they've yet to be able to give evidence for success in any matter except for a questionable and vanishingly small sample. In this thread, I demonstrated that I was aware and well versed in these "therapies", which would go along with my constant demonstration that, especially when I'm talking about psychological subjects, I am well versed in the things I represent myself as well-versed in. And yet, he responded with:
quote:Thats your opinion, I think its sweepingly hasty in judgement. I seriously doubt you have extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal. For me to agree with you I would have to actively disagree with what I honestly believe is true. That human beings can become whatever they choose to be. You can believe that its impossible for any homosexual to cultivate feelings of attraction towards members of the opposite gender, and I would simply disagree with you.
I have to wonder, how much is it going to take?
Thats quite misleading MR.Squicky. You made the statement that you knew such efforts had a low success rate. I challenged your credentials and expressed doubt and in another thread that I didnt see you posted some data on the matter. Maybe I misunderstood you but don't pretend I saw your credentials and still maintained my doubt.
edit: I reread your post and now I am not sure what point your are trying to make. Could you elucidate please?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slavery was status quo, segregation was status quo, women as property was status quo. There were "downsides" to abolishing all of those. Still it needed to be done because it was right.
I am not clear. Are you suggesting that higher crim rates, drops in literacy etc. would be the result of SSM? If so, why do you think these things would follow.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
