This is not a threat. I am not so naive and self-involved to think that OSC is boo-hooing over my decision. I just wanted to make my protest clear, explain why, and perhaps encourage others to act as they see fit in their own lives.
I work at a bookstore and a few days ago I put in a pre-order for "Ender in Exile." I could have read it on my lunch break or even checked it out in order to read at home. But I was excited to own another book in one of my favorite series. However, after reading the latest WorldWatch, I've decided to cancel my pre-order. Its the only peaceful protest I can make. I will continue to campaign for day when commitment is honored and recognized regardless of the individuals involved. I will also recommit myself to not financially supporting individuals who encourage exclusion and fear.
I do not want to argue the "morality" of gay marriage. I don't have a problem with his position. He is welcome to his opinion. I have a problem with his language and scare tactics.
I counted about ten appearances of the word "force." Oh, the horror of being forced to live alongside loving couples of the same sex. And let's not forget the stance against abortion, even though gay couples would be able to offer stable homes for all of the children given up for adoption.
quote:Many people who have telephoned people about Prop. 8 have heard the person who answers the phone say, "No gay marriage! I am voting no on Prop. 8!" But when you try to explain that if you don't want gay marriage, you have to vote yes on Prop. 8, they often get confused.
If people cannot do the simple research prior to voting, they probably shouldn't be voting. I also reject the notion that the only way Prop. 8 will lose is because the "moral majority" was tricked..
quote:We citizens do not have to recognize any attempt by any body of government to redefine a human relationship that existed for thousands of years before any existing government or constitution was established.
It seems to me that the American definition of marriage is a minority held approach in the course of history. What of the thousands of years where marriage an heir-bearing system between a man and many wives. What of arranged marriages between adults, or between children? Or marriage as a financial transaction?
quote:Nor do they have the power to force us to change our understanding of marriage. Regardless of what the government says, if we as individuals or communities refuse to accept anything except a heterosexual bond as a "marriage," we cannot be forced to change our mind, our language, or our social behavior.
I AGREE COMPLETELY! So then what is OSC so scared of? He goes on and on about how gay marriage is being forced on opponents. But its not! His marriage with his wife isn't be threatened. Two men or two women swearing lifelong devotion to one another in no way devalues his own commitment to the spouse of his choice. And he is welcome to raise his children however he would like. Trust me, I've met many individuals who had their racial fears passed onto them from their parents. And no, I do not see the differences.
One of my college professors is an older gay gentleman who grew up in Little Rock, Arkansas. He often remarks that no matter how long he lives, he can't escape the hateful claims made by the majority who fear a disenfranchised minority. Its the same language, the same approach every time.
And I am sure with time that American ideals will once again overcome and our government will remember its place as the protection for the minority.
In the end, I will certainly read "Ender in Exile." I respect Card as a fiction writer, but find him lacking as a fellow citizen.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, I guess I'll have to preorder it to show my support then.
And I'm not really sure how the correlarry to interracial marriage stacks up. I'd like to see some statistics on how well interracial marriages do, really. I mean, I'm sure everyone around here is sick of hearing about my anecdotal evidence.
Hmm. I've thought of a result along these lines but had no idea the effect already existed. Mostly, I think gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women. I'm pretty sure there is also such a marriage squeeze that affects Asian men.
Interrracial divorce appears to be 10 percentage points more likely (41% to 31% by this survey). They call this "not hugely so" but I guess it depends on how serious you find "marital disruption" as a social ill. There are some findings that multiracial children are more likely to suffer mood disorders (this link disputes the matter) and some say if it is the case, it is society's fault, not the family structure. Well, we've had 40 years to sort out the society end of things.
Of course, being biracial, I suppose I have made the choice to inflict these same problems on my children. The thing is, I'll at least name it for being a challenge rather than insist that the rest of society pretend we're normal, and call anyone who believes otherwise evil.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I was referring more to general racial struggles and attitudes than race in terms of marriage. Most of my relationships have been interracial and it was in those relationships that I realized just how big of a role racism still plays in current times. My mom had a hard time dealing with it, I counted quite a few harsh stares while out and about, and so forth. My most serious ex-boyfriend and I went to the same college and good high schools, but our experiences were vastly as I was just another white suburban girl in the south and he had struggled with being the "token black kid" who didn't really fit in anywhere. This disparity in background altered our perceptions on quite a few issues and while every couple has hurdles to overcome, its one more than white/white and black/black couples face.
There are people who disagreed, based solely on their views regarding race, with the dating choices I've made but even in the South, very few vocalized their opinion and those who did spoke apologetically. They've become a smaller and smaller group with every generation. And it'll happen with the gay marriage opponents too.
There were those who spoke vehemently about being "forced" to mix with people of a different race. I choose to believe that when interracial marriage became legal and socially acceptable, and the world didn't end, people realized that they didn't have anything to worry about. And I choose to believe that they developed this opinion through personal witness or tolerant teachings by their parents. Not by being brainwashed as OSC would have people believe.
Gay marriage will not end badly for women. I would rather be single than find out later that my husband was gay, making his life one of denial and mine one of lies and false beliefs. I look forward to the wedding invitations from all my gay classmates. They threw some of the best parties in college. Bring it on!
Posted by JustAskIndiana (Member # 9268) on :
quote: It seems to me that the American definition of marriage is a minority held approach in the course of history. What of the thousands of years where marriage an heir-bearing system between a man and many wives. What of arranged marriages between adults, or between children? Or marriage as a financial transaction?
Every single one of those examples has one thing in common: however the relationship may have been created or for what motive, it was between a male and female.
The thing is, marriage isn't just between two people; it's between two people and the community in which they live. If this were not the case, then there would be no point in gays fighting for "marriage" rights in the first place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Shanna, I just wanted to let you know that you're not alone in your feelings on this issue. I've decided not to go into length anymore on this topic on Hatrack, since there are enough Mormons here that it can't help but raise hackles and, really, I don't want to get mad at people who don't think they have any choice but to march in lockstep about this. I firmly believe that they'll look back on this time in their history with shame and confusion, but it's theirs to own for now.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom can't win for losing.
quote:I don't want to get mad at people who don't think they have any choice but to march in lockstep about this.
If you get mad, it's not anyone's fault but your own. Don't blame your emotional issues on others-- is this sounding familiar to you at all?
Let me point out that at least two Mormons here have voiced opposition to OSC's beliefs regarding SSM-- I'm thinking specifically of Rabbit and Tatiana.
I'm fairly certain that most of the Mormons who are active on this board have thought about this issue in detail-- and there's nothing "lockstep" about the way we swagger, Tom.
EDIT: That is, I'm at least aware of the choice I make when I oppose same sex marriage. I'm not doing it because Pres. Monson and the council of the twelve apostles says to oppose it. I've reasoned it out, weighed how I feel and what I think. It's NOT a matter of "pray, pay, obey." I've come to a different conclusion than you-- and I will not stand idle while you degrade that opinion to blind faith, or hand-wringing apologetics.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Tom- As far as LDS having a choice, I know for a fact that you will receive absolutely no church disciplinary action no matter what way you vote on any amendment right now. So, while there might be some social pressure, ultimately, anyone can vote their heart without fear of reprisal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So, while there might be some social pressure, ultimately, anyone can vote their heart...
I believe there has been a commandment to not vote your heart on this issue, but rather to vote a specific way. You can choose to disobey it without being punished, but you must still consciously choose to disobey the command. In a society where some people don't watch R-rated movies because it's been suggested that they not do so, this is a potent force.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: I too am a Mormon who in the past has not supported efforts to curtail gay marriage. I voted against the ban that passed here in Utah. But if the Utah supreme court made rulings identical to the Californian supreme court I would be voting FOR a proposition reinstating the ban.
If the voice of the people elect to ban or to allow something contractual like marriage that is the very heart of a democracy. We endure some rules we don't agree with because it is what the people want. The state supreme court does not have the right to declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. By it's very definition a constitutional amendment becomes PART of the constitution. Motions that defy the amendment are in fact unconstitutional.
Scott has already taken some of the flame out of my fire, but I am disappointed that you would blame Mormon ignorance and intolerance for your unwillingness to continue discussing this issue. It seems like a cop out at best, and completely disingenuous at worst. I do not fully comprehend my church leadership's opposition to gay marriage, but I want to. I believe there are facts that I am unaware of that could totally throttle my point of view, or strengthen my current beliefs further. I desperately hope one of our general authorities will help the church understand the mind of the Lord on this matter, but currently they have only asked those in California to support Proposition 8 which to me ban's gay marriage, but also protects the right of the people to create their social contract. The latter is so important I don't think I could overstate it.
As for us looking back on this time in shame, I am confident that even if somehow everyone suddenly concludes that homosexuality causes real harm and backpedals to the former status quo that people will quickly find another issue to batter organized religion with. They will promote it to the level of prominence homosexual rights currently enjoy today.
Even when we're right Tom we're still hopelessly wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would be voting FOR a proposition reinstating the ban.
That is not what Proposition 8 does, however.
quote:I am disappointed that you would blame Mormon ignorance and intolerance for your unwillingness to continue discussing this issue....I am confident that even if somehow everyone suddenly concludes that homosexuality causes real harm and backpedals to the former status quo that people will quickly find another issue to batter organized religion with.
It is because religious groups are playing the victim here and pretending that their rights are being "battered" that I don't see the merit in discussing this further. Nothing is further from the truth, and I don't want to encourage people in their delusional victimization by giving them any excuse to conflate basic human rights with a dislike of their particular superstitions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:That is not what Proposition 8 does, however.
The text itself does not say that it is protecting democracy, but perhaps you could explain to me what you think Proposition 8 does.
quote:It is because religious groups are playing the victim here and pretending that their rights are being "battered" that I don't see the merit in discussing this further. Nothing is further from the truth, and I don't want to encourage people in their delusional victimization by giving them any excuse to conflate basic human rights with a dislike of their particular superstitions.
So are you saying then that opponents of this ban in no way see the ban as religious in nature and therefore deserving of their opposition? From my perspective and having read MANY articles discussing the ban the fact that religious groups support it is often brought up as a reason to oppose the ban. As in, religious nuts who are ignorant fools anyway are trying to keep the rights of homosexuals away, the judiciary was right to strike down the amendment in the first place, and this new ban must also be stopped.
edit: Do you think the California Supreme court was right to strike down the original amendment banning gay marriage Tom? Regardless of whether gay marriage is right or wrong, was the court correct in the action and precedent it is setting?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:perhaps you could explain to me what you think Proposition 8 does
Given the previous Supreme Court ruling, I think the text amends the Constitution to define the word "marriage" in a way that prevents the legal recognition of "marriage" by the state of California.
quote:So are you saying then that opponents of this ban in no way see the ban as religious in nature and therefore deserving of their opposition?
Rather, I think that those who oppose it generally do so out of a deep desire for social justice. However, I think many people who share a desire for social justice in other cases are prevented by their religions from exercising that desire in this case. I'll not argue that you will see people cite the religious nature of the pro-Prop8 arguments as a weakness. That's because there is simply no good argument for it which does not rely on religion, and therefore the fact that the only arguments for it are religious ones -- in our secular society -- is something of a major flaw. In the same way, one might criticize Islamic sharia.
quote:Do you think the California Supreme court was right to strike down the original amendment banning gay marriage Tom?
I think they were right to do so -- given that the amendment you're referring to was actually a statutory change and not a constitutional change, and thus theoretically subject to the Supreme Court's ruling -- but moreover I don't think that's what the amendment actually did.
To actually achieve the ends they intend, voters in California should amend their Constitution to legalize discrimination by the state against homosexuals, which is currently expressly banned by their constitution. As the Supreme Court has interpreted their constitution, even laws which have an unintended discriminatory effect may be considered discriminatory; California needs to reverse this interpretation, either through express amendment or additional legal precedent, before it can interpret its marriage law in a way that is even unintentionally discriminatory.
It is my opinion that the drafters of these ridiculous amendments are perfectly well aware of these issues, and a) don't want to put the issue even temporarily to bed, so they deliberately introduce loopholes that'll encourage further controversy; and b) lack the courage to just come out with a "Discrimination is A-OK by Us" proposition.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: Interesting. I don't have time to respond now, in fact I just forfeited finishing a term paper to read these threads, I'll try to get to your post later in the day.
Let it be known that Tom is bad for education.
In all seriousness though Tom, I wish you would retract your statement that the Mormons on this board are all in lock and step on this issue and have made discourse impossible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I didn't say they've made discourse impossible. I've said I didn't want to get mad at the Mormons on this board for voting as per the demands of their church leadership, even if it's at the cost of social justice -- and, moreover, that I didn't want to give the religious any additional excuse to claim that I'm supporting same-sex marriage out of some desire to hurt Religion in general.
I'm perfectly aware that there are Mormons on this board who oppose Proposition 8. I'm also aware that, in so doing, they are disobeying an explicit and unambiguous command. Not everyone can bring themselves to do that, and it's unfair to expect it of them.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Do you think the California Supreme court was right to strike down the original amendment banning gay marriage Tom?
I think they were right to do so -- given that the amendment you're referring to was actually a statutory change and not a constitutional change, and thus theoretically subject to the Supreme Court's ruling -- but moreover I don't think that's what the amendment actually did.
To actually achieve the ends they intend, voters in California should amend their Constitution to legalize discrimination by the state against homosexuals, which is currently expressly banned by their constitution. As the Supreme Court has interpreted their constitution, even laws which have an unintended discriminatory effect may be considered discriminatory; California needs to reverse this interpretation, either through express amendment or additional legal precedent, before it can interpret its marriage law in a way that is even unintentionally discriminatory.
It is my opinion that the drafters of these ridiculous amendments are perfectly well aware of these issues, and a) don't want to put the issue even temporarily to bed, so they deliberately introduce loopholes that'll encourage further controversy; and b) lack the courage to just come out with a "Discrimination is A-OK by Us" proposition. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Just question in regards to your "Legalize Discrimination" comment. I understand you don't want to discriminate people for their sexual preferences. Should California should allow polygamy, under age marriages, and even bestiality then? Those don't hurt anyone either according to people that participate in them.
The Man/Boy Love Association supports gay relationships between men and underage boys. If they wanted legislation enabling these types of couples to be legalized, would that be ok?
Where do you draw the line?
The problem with discrimination is that the word gets thrown around too often. If I do something that offends you, I am disciminating against you. If you have different skin color than me and I say something to you that you don't like, I am discriminating. If you have a different lifestyle that I don't agree with, I am discriminating. Not to bring up another unrelated subject, but I do not agree with amnesty to illegal immigrants. Does that make me racist or discriminatory?
People have different morals and ideas. Our entire country is based on the idea that everyone has a right to believe what they want. Because of this, the majority determines what is legal and what is not. The majority of people believe murder should not be allowed, so it is not. The majority of people think that rape should not be allowed, so it is not.
Be glad you don't live in another country.
In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens, her mother must be in the room to witness the act.
Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in tropical fish stores.
In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.
In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but is prohibited from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: Our entire country is based on the idea that everyone has a right to believe what they want.
Assuming you're talking about the United States, this country is more about personal liberties and collective wisdom than self delusion.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: Just question in regards to your "Legalize Discrimination" comment. I understand you don't want to discriminate people for their sexual preferences. Should California should allow polygamy, under age marriages, and even bestiality then? Those don't hurt anyone either according to people that participate in them.
I take great offense as a human being to you for daring to suggest that a relationship between two consensual adults is the same as bestiality or child abuse. I'm going to assume that you're being purposefully inflammatory, in which case I would ask you to rescind that comment immediately.
If you honestly can't tell the difference, then I feel horribly sorry for your ignorance, and I'd like to express my sincere hope that you never post such ignorance again.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay:
Just question in regards to your "Legalize Discrimination" comment. I understand you don't want to discriminate people for their sexual preferences. Should California should allow polygamy, under age marriages, and even bestiality then? Those don't hurt anyone either according to people that participate in them.
Well, that's not the standard. The standard is the people making the contract have to be in a position to give meaningful consent. Ainmals, can't do that, and neither can children, espeically children being coerced by adults who want things form them.
Now, if you think that this is the wrong standard, that informed consent is irrelvent, then say so openly. Don't slyly make an argument that takes assumes that informed consent is irrelevent, when no one else thinks it is.
As for polygamy, it's not directly comprable at all. The government is perfectly justified in counting heads. What they are not allowed to do, except under a very limited number of circumstances, is count penises.
quote:The Man/Boy Love Association supports gay relationships between men and underage boys. If they wanted legislation enabling these types of couples to be legalized, would that be ok?
No, because informed, free consent is important. I get that you think it is irrelvent, but surely you know that everyone else thinks it is highly relevent.
quote:People have different morals and ideas. Our entire country is based on the idea that everyone has a right to believe what they want.
Sure. But you can't stop me from having my civil rights based on the fact that you believe I don't desrve them.
quote:Because of this, the majority determines what is legal and what is not.
The way the majority thought that Jim Crow laws were great ideas?
No, if the Constitution says that something is my right, then it's illegal to keep it from me, no matter how unpopular beign fair to me is.
I'll say it again, in super bold so maybe it will sink in
The majority can't violate the Constitution, no matter how popular it is
quote:The majority of people believe murder should not be allowed, so it is not.
Okay. So explain why it's not legal for a white majority state to pass a law by majority recinding the laws against murder against black people going to the polls.
quote:The majority of people think that rape should not be allowed, so it is not.
So if a majority rules that the marital rape exemption should be put back into place, you will argue that women can do nothing but hope for a majority to overturn that law?
What if a majority of New Yorkers decide they are sick of being screwed over by Wall street bankers, and pass a law taking all their property, and throwing them out of the city? You are seriously arguing that the bankers have no legal recourse?
What happens if a majority decides they don't like you? Do you honestly think that you have no legal recourse form the tyranny of the majority at all?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Shanna, I would like to add my voice to Tom's. I stopped buying or even reading OSC's books once I started reading his columns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You know, it's beyond tacky for people to come to this site and advertise their boycott of the site's owner.
Sure, no one called for anyone to join them. But those posting their decision to not buy the book could have accomplished the goal of letting OSC know of their decision without posting it here. That leads me to believe that the goal involved telling people other than OSC about this decision to not read his works.
And doing that here is tacky.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
As for polygamy, it's not directly comprable at all. The government is perfectly justified in counting heads. What they are not allowed to do, except under a very limited number of circumstances, is count penises.
So the government cannot count the number of penises in a relationship, but the government can count the number of vaginas if there is a penis thrown in there somewhere? Can you tell me what is wrong with a child having multiple mothers to care for them? Or having a husband providing for and taking care of multiple wives? If two fathers or two mothers are fine for a child, why not one father and two mothers? Or 5 mothers? Wouldn't that be even better? I apologize for bringing the adult/minor argument in, as well as bestiality. You were correct in that it was irrelavent and completely different. At times I don't think things through as much as I should. I do feel however that the polygamy argument is valid. In the 1800's the LDS church practiced polygamy. Because of the persecution of the church the members were constantly on the move, often times in horrible weather. Many men died and the women had nowhere to turn. Polygamy enabled the women to have a husband to care for them and to provide for them and their children. I don't believe there was much outcry when polygamy was banned in the U.S. I don't believe there were special interest groups or human rights groups fighting for the polygamists rights. Here we are in 2008 now, and polygamy is still considered to be considered a bad thing. Yet it is "Cool" to be an 80 year old guy living with and sleeping with all sorts of young women outside of marriage. (Here's looking at you Hef) Do I think there is a double standard? You bet I do. I do not understand the whole "Its ok for gay marriage but polygamy is still not ok" argument. Every time I have asked for a reason I always get the same answer. Its either "Its more than two people" or "The government can count heads." And my answer back is "So?" If we really want every person to have their right to be with whomever they wish, why should polygamy be any different? Again, I apologize for the comments I made before.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay:
So the government cannot count the number of penises in a relationship, but the government can count the number of vaginas if there is a penis thrown in there somewhere?
No, they can count the number of persons. They don't have to look down any of their pants.
Why are you so intent on having the government look down your pants before granting you your civil rights?
quote:Can you tell me what is wrong with a child having multiple mothers to care for them? Or having a husband providing for and taking care of multiple wives? If two fathers or two mothers are fine for a child, why not one father and two mothers? Or 5 mothers? Wouldn't that be even better?
Maybe. But marriage is a two-person thing. The govenrment is allowed to count persons. If you think not, try writing that you have 10 dependants on your taxes, and preventing the government from verifying that you do indeed have ten such persons dependant on you.
quote:I apologize for bringing the adult/minor argument in, as well as bestiality. You were correct in that it was irrelavent and completely different. At times I don't think things through as much as I should.
Ah, but there are two points here.
There's what you think is a rational argument, and what you really believe and why.
It is always, always a very good thing to understand why you believe what you believe. And if you believe that gay people are as hurtful as child molesters, then it's good that you explictly know that you believe that. And it's good for everyone else to understand that you believe that.
So by all means, make the arguments that move you.
quote:Here we are in 2008 now, and polygamy is still considered to be considered a bad thing. Yet it is "Cool" to be an 80 year old guy living with and sleeping with all sorts of young women outside of marriage. (Here's looking at you Hef)
And therefore, gay people should not be allowed to have honest marriages because of...?
quote:I do not understand the whole "Its ok for gay marriage but polygamy is still not ok" argument.
Well, I don't understand why this is an argument for hurting millions of innocent gay people by denying them their civil rights.
Polygamists are, right now, able to engage in an honest marriage, with a person they truly love and intend to spend their life with. Gay people don't even have that.
Frnakly, if polygamists can work out an equitable way to stretch the law so that it does what they wish (For instance, if a man has three spouses, who gets to be the decision maker with regard to his medical care? When there is only one spouse, the answer is simple.)I say let them do it, unless someone can make a pressing case why they shouldn't.
There are such a tiny number of legitimate cases where non-coerced adults would desire such a situation, it's not really worth fighting over.
quote:Again, I apologize for the comments I made before.
Your apology is nice, but the question is, do you only regret voicing such insulting sentiments, or do you regret believing such things? Are you really trying to say that only today did you realize that consent matters in civil marriage, and only becuase it was pointed out to you by other people?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I rather think that blindsay is recognizing that they engaged in hyperbole, and backing down from said hyperbole with relative grace.
I think trying to grill them on said hyperbole after extracting an apology and retraction is in pretty poor form. They admitted it's not relevant. Don't try to demonize them. Just stick with that they're still claiming, please.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Should California should allow polygamy, under age marriages, and even bestiality then? Those don't hurt anyone either according to people that participate in them.
The Man/Boy Love Association supports gay relationships between men and underage boys. If they wanted legislation enabling these types of couples to be legalized, would that be ok?
To answer the question as it was asked to me: I consider a non-consensual relationship to be definitionally harmful. Heck, I define "harm" for myself in a way that explicitly clarifies the role of intentionality. I personally don't see anything wrong with polygamy -- but bestiality, pedophilia, and incest all involve certain factors which, to my mind, call into serious question the possibility that all the parties involved are capable of unconstrained consent to the relationship. This doesn't mean that all bestiality, pedophilia, and incest is necessarily harmful, mind you, but I think the difficulty of establishing the quality of consent for any one specific relationship of those types is high enough that it'd be functionally impossible for our legal system to determine merit on an individual basis. And in the same way that we draw an arbitrary line in the sand at the age of 16 and say, "younger than this, you cannot drive -- no matter how good you are," I'm comfortable saying, "you can't marry your sister or your dog, no matter how much they seem to want it and no matter how healthy your relationship is."
Yes, this may well deeply disappoint a number of individuals. However, the number of individuals disappointed is much, much lower in these cases -- and, moreover, the requirements of entry are made clearer and more universal. I don't think this is where society will, in ten thousand years, end up -- but I think it's another stage in its evolution.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Sure, no one called for anyone to join them. But those posting their decision to not buy the book could have accomplished the goal of letting OSC know of their decision without posting it here. That leads me to believe that the goal involved telling people other than OSC about this decision to not read his works.
And doing that here is tacky.
You may read into it whatever you want. Like you said, I did not call for anyone to follow suit. And honestly, do you think OSC would look at the first week of the new book sales and think "oh, there's one missing, I wonder why!"
quote: quote: It seems to me that the American definition of marriage is a minority held approach in the course of history. What of the thousands of years where marriage an heir-bearing system between a man and many wives. What of arranged marriages between adults, or between children? Or marriage as a financial transaction?
Every single one of those examples has one thing in common: however the relationship may have been created or for what motive, it was between a male and female.
Maybe my morals are off, but I believe homosexual and two-partner heterosexual unions are more similar than "the definition of marriage" and polygamy or other expressions of marriage.
American society currently holds in high standing the concept of two consenting adults, one man and one woman, declaring lifelong devotion based on love and respect.
With gay marriage, we're proposing to keep the standard of two consenting adults making a life-long commitment based on love. We're just want to alter the gender bit.
I see alot of common ground there.
Look throughout history. Think about the women sold by their families for economic and political gain. The arranged marriages of child-brides. Etc, and so forth.
That's why I don't see it as a slippery slope. When you define marriage by the the gender of the participants, you're ignoring the very sanctity you claim to hold so dear. When the preference is based on genitals and not the commitments of the heart, THAT is when you invite a slippery slope of immorality and marriage for personal gain.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: And honestly, do you think OSC would look at the first week of the new book sales and think "oh, there's one missing, I wonder why!"
No. I don't see any way you could rationally think I thought that.
You could, however, have contacted him privately if your desire was to simply inform him of your choice.
There are also thousands of site where you could have posted your decision that are not paid for by OSC.
Edit: Also, you did intend to "make my protest clear, explain why, and perhaps encourage others to act as they see fit in their own lives."
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
And if he actually has a problem with me politely and without hostility sharing my opinion, then he is welcome to contact me and let me know. If promotion was his sole concern, it doesn't make sense to have a forum to share ideas if only one side is allowed. But again, if this is his position, I will happily vacate.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: If promotion was his sole concern, it doesn't make sense to have a forum to share ideas if only one side is allowed.
Clearly more than one side is allowed. I myself have written posts opposing OSC's ideas on gay marriage. Nor did I say that promotion is his sole concern in having the forum. I'm also pretty sure you know that.
quote:if he actually has a problem with me politely and without hostility sharing my opinion, then he is welcome to contact me and let me know.
He won't do that, and I'm pretty sure you know that, too. That's precisely the reason I'm commenting on it.
He's an author. This is his site. You want to not buy his books because of his political opinions? Fine. You want to explain your reasons and encourage others to act in their own lives? Fine. I'm actually a strong proponent of boycotts. But using the resources of the boycott target to publicize it is tacky.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: ... Be glad you don't live in another country. ... Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in tropical fish stores.
For the sake of clarity, I truly don't understand this particular section. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BLindsay got this far, looked at his post, and thought, "Hrm. It's not long enough. I'm going to throw in this bit from an email I got without factchecking it on Snopes or anything first."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Perhaps, but even if thats true I'm confused.
See, the other three sentences make sense, presumably one is to be glad that one doesn't live in those three countries where these odd arbitrary laws apply. (And presumably blindsay is essentially saying, "hey, these places are even worse than us. So whats the big deal?")
But I don't get this one. Is it saying that its horrible to be in a society that permits topless saleswomen? But then why pick Liverpool? Canada allows topless women, period, on the grounds that its discriminatory to allow topless men but not women. Or is it the other way around? Look how horrible it is to live in a society that forcibly clothes its women?
And how do the goldfish fit in?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: ... Hmm. I've thought of a result along these lines but had no idea the effect already existed. Mostly, I think gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women. I'm pretty sure there is also such a marriage squeeze that affects Asian men.
Re: marriage squeeze for Asian men
Verily. It seems quite the hot topic to put it mildly.
But did you actually mean to say that gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women (if so, please elaborate on why it would affect women disproportionately) or just that interracial marriage is winding up badly for women?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I think it is just factually inaccurate to say that gay marriage will somehow not allow us to produce enough children. What about artifical insemination? IIRC, Melissa Etheridge and her first female life partner had two children this way, by David Crosby. I don't think they're the only lesbian couple to do this.
I can see that it might cause a slight lowering effect on the birth rate, but come on. The BS alarmism over this is so silly. Like it's going to make a big difference in the birth rate. How is that a reasonable conclusion?
Posted by CG-LJ (Member # 11793) on :
Wow. I am not a scholar, nor am I a published writer. I do love the stories that Mr. Card tell and hope to read more from him. He has an awesome imagination.
I am fortunate to live in a FREE Country where I can be a gay man if I so choose. It seems that with every election, my countrymen and women get further and further from the basic principals that this country was founded on, so many years ago.
Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all. Our country was founded so that the people(that's you and me) can practice what ever religion they so choose, without fear of persecution, public or private!
Our Government is supposed to be separated from all Churches. Marriage between a man and a women, has been defined for most of time (but not all) as being between opposite sex couples, by the religious institutions, not by governments.
For a religious person to say that I can not commit myself to one person, as they have done to their spouse, is a violation of the Constitution of this Country.
I do not care where Mr. Card Votes. That is his right as Citizen, and I think you should be ashamed to try and sway his choice by your actions. I do not purchase Mr. Card's books because I like his political views, or because I use to be LDS, I buy them because to me they ROCK.
I can pick up one of his books and loose myself in another character. I can forget about my own life drama, and be shooting across the stars in search of a planet for my aunt like friends.
If you choose what you will purchase based upon the creators political choices, than you might as well, turn off your computer, take all of your clothes off and go live in a rain forest some where.
As for me, A OUT GAY MAN, I will vote no on Prop 8, and I will still purchase the Awesome short stories and books by Mr. Card.
just my 2 cents
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, CG-LJ and blindsay. You both seem like good folks. I hope you'll both stick around.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
Like I said, he has a right to his opinion and his political choices. I take offense not to his stance, but to his decision to incite fear and panic. Its one to thing to say that "my religion disapproves of homosexuality" and its another claim that gay marriage is being FORCED on society with detrimental effects.
As one of those individuals too poor to be a Republican, I am a fairly small consumer. I spend as much on books in two months as I might spend on clothes in a whole year. It is fully in my right to say that I don't feel like financing certain attitudes. I'm interested in politics but you won't see me purchasing "Obamanation" and sending money to Corsi.
Thankfully libraries and comfy chairs at bookstores provide plenty of opportunities for myself and others to read and stay informed without financially supporting those with views I find to be offensive.
I applaud OSC's ability to write for a unified audience and for the most part contain some of his political and social views. I read "Ender's Game" and "Songmaster" and "Enchantment" and have a hard-time believing that Card the Author and Card the Columnist are the same person. But I found the language of his latest column too offensive to continue to ignore. So I won't.
And this is the most acceptable, polite form of protest that I can think of.
Posted by Lanfear (Member # 7776) on :
I'm all for you protesting your own preorder Shanna. But coming here to try to "convince others" to protest with you is ... unnecessary.
We all have different political opinions. I'm sure you don't go out and research all those involved in a film beforehand and double check to make sure none of them are communists.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
I wish I could believe any of these supposed "conservatives" gave a damn about defending democracy or the Constitution when attacking judicial interference.
In reality what I've seen Orson Scott Card and his fellow Republicans do (let's not pretend he's a Democrat in anything but name) is urge the Court to violate the constitution in the direction they themselves desire.
I've not seen Orson Scott Card oppose federal drug laws, even though there's nothing in the constitution that e.g. allows the federal government to outlaw marijuana or any other drug. If Republicans wants federal anti-drug laws he they should seek a constitutional amendment.
I've instead seen Orson Scott Card argue that when the constitution says "people", that it means "citizens" instead. Orson Scott Card is all in favor of the constitution being twisted so as to allow the government to electrocute people's genitals, as long as those people are foreigner people.
Since *I* am a foreigner, I don't very much appreciate Orson Scott Card's position that the US government is allowed to electrocute my genitals.
So, NO SYMPATHY FROM ME, for poor poor Orson Scott Card and his supposed caring for freedom and democracy. What I see is liberal judges trying to protect individuals from government interference, and reactionary judges trying to allow government control over the individuals (whether by forbidding drugs, or by allowing governmental interference in abortion, or by allowing the violation of Habeas Corpus).
Except that gee, the former attitude is justified by the following: THE ENUMERATION IN THE CONSITUTION, OF CERTAIN RIGHTS, SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO DENY OR DISPARAGE OTHERS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE.
And the latter attitude, OSC's attitude, is not justified by anything at all except his own whims.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: It is fully in my right to say that I don't feel like financing certain attitudes.
Yep. I haven't seen anyone say it's not your right.
It's also fully my right to say it's rude and tacky to do so here.
quote:Thankfully libraries and comfy chairs at bookstores provide plenty of opportunities for myself and others to read and stay informed without financially supporting those with views I find to be offensive.
So this is one of those protests where you don't actually sacrifice anything. You'll still get to read the book he wrote, and get the pleasure from that. But, by golly, you'll tell everyone - on his own site, no less - that you won't buy his book.
You've said you expect this to not influence OSC at all. And it's not going to actually affect you - you'll read the book in your comfy chair.
quote:And this is the most acceptable, polite form of protest that I can think of.
And I would have a lot of respect for it, except for the part where you attack his livelihood using resources he sets aside to further it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's also fully my right to say it's rude and tacky to do so here.
Dag, would you feel the same way about someone explaining why they're boycotting the Boy Scouts of America on the BSA site? Or Coca-Cola, on one of Coca-Cola's various forums?
I'm wondering whether it's because OSC is an individual that you feel this way, or because you're opposed in principle to the appropriation of any agency's own thoughtspace -- because, let's face it, the issue is more one of visibility here than the cost of resources -- in criticizing aspects of that agency's behavior.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, would you feel the same way about someone explaining why they're boycotting the Boy Scouts of America on the BSA site? Or Coca-Cola, on one of Coca-Cola's various forums?
I'm not sure I'd feel the same way, since there's an undeniable personal aspect to it being done here, but I think it's wrong to do it in any of the three settings.
The irony is that if BSA or Coca-Cola removed such posts from their forum, they'd probably face less flak in the Slashdots and Arse Technicas of the net than if OSC removed this thread.
quote:because, let's face it, the issue is more one of visibility here than the cost of resources
And the issue isn't about visibility or cost of resources. It's about the use of his resources even though it doesn't increase his costs and the taking advantage of the fact that he's created this site for us.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Aris said: "Since *I* am a foreigner, I don't very much appreciate Orson Scott Card's position that the US government is allowed to electrocute my genitals."
You guys probably all know that I read just about everything here. Mostly I patiently watch and let it go. Freedom of speech you know. Tolerance of all ideas is a big deal at our house. But every now and then my patience wears thin and this one was WAY over my edge. (Out and out lies and character assassination are hard to take first thing in the morning.)
Here is what OSC ACTUALLY has said about torture. I'm afraid your misrepresentation was more than I could take today.
An excerpt:
World Watch First appeared in print in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC
By Orson Scott Card May 9, 2004
How Could Americans Do Such Things?
People in authority sometimes forget that their abstract words can turn into painfully specific actions on the ground.
For instance, I can imagine somebody reporting to a high Defense Department official: "We're not getting any useful information out of the prisoners we're arresting in Iraq."
There are several correct responses that high official could give, and all of them are questions:
"Are we already doing everything we legally or decently can in order to secure their cooperation?"
"Are we getting reliable information from cooperative Iraqis about which people to arrest?"
"Are we arresting the wrong people?"
Instead the high official thinks: Our soldiers are being killed out there, and if we could get more information we could save American lives. That is my first responsibility.
So he answers, "Don't tell me what you aren't getting! Make it happen!"
And if the high Defense Department official has already gotten rid of any subordinates with the spunk (i.e., "disloyalty") to say things like, "Sir, we are already at the limit of what the Geneva Convention and American law and public opinion will tolerate," then those words remain unsaid.
Instead, "Make it happen!" is the message that gets passed down the line.
Now, in a peacetime bureaucracy, ludicrous commands from superiors are often ignored or delayed, thus saving the country -- and the leader -- from some of his dumber mistakes.
But in wartime, there's a sense of urgent duty -- especially when accompanied by the mantra "American lives are at stake."
After all, that mantra happens to be true. There are terrorists and rebels and foreign agents in Iraq, plotting ways to kill American and allied soldiers -- and to kill Iraqis who cooperate with us.
It's so easy to lose track of another fact: Most of the people we arrest probably don't know anything useful, so no matter what we do to them, they can't give us any more information than we already have.
All we can do by humiliating, abusing, or torturing them is to make them into enemies -- and, when the facts come out (as, in a democracy like ours, they always do) earn the contempt and hatred of the world, and the outraged shame of our own people.
So here's a moral question for all of us to consider.
What if those wretched, shameful actions in Iraqi prisons (and the pictures we've seen are only the tip of the iceberg) brought us ten cases of prisoners giving up information that led to preventing ten acts of terrorism?
And let's say that those acts of terrorism might have caused an average of five deaths each?
Would that humiliation, abuse, and torture have been worth it, if it saved fifty lives?
If someone reached the conclusion that the lives saved were worth the degradation of ourselves and our prisoners, I would not consider them morally monstrous. A case can be made for that viewpoint.
But I would disagree with them. Perhaps because I think there are things more important than life.
Aren't our soldiers in Iraq precisely because there are causes worth putting the lives of our soldiers at risk? Liberating the Iraqi people, cutting off a major supporter of terrorism, preventing the development or deployment of weapons of mass destruction that Iraq was known to possess or be working on, and discouraging other nations from supporting terrorism -- those were all worthy reasons for putting our soldiers in harm's way.
Isn't maintaining our own decency as a nation, even in time of war, also worth risking the lives of American soldiers? Isn't maintaining America as America also a cause worth dying for?
Then, when you consider that the value of the intelligence gathered from these prisoners has been characterized as trivial, chances are that we lost some of our honor in those prisons in exchange for nothing.
Not fifty lives. Not ten lives. Not five.
Nothing.
[ October 22, 2008, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The irony is that if BSA or Coca-Cola removed such posts from their forum, they'd probably face less flak in the Slashdots and Arse Technicas of the net than if OSC removed this thread.
*nod* That's actually why I asked. I think there is a uniquely personal element to the interaction here that (IMO) both inspires people to do what Shanna's done, here, in (distant) hopes of directly influencing OSC himself; and also makes such actions more presumptuous than if they were in a more "corporate" environment.
(And along those lines: thanks, Kristine. It's been a few years, and it's good to be reminded of that essay now and then.)
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
But marriage is a two-person thing. The govenrment is allowed to count persons. If you think not, try writing that you have 10 dependants on your taxes, and preventing the government from verifying that you do indeed have ten such persons dependant on you.
quote:I do not understand the whole "Its ok for gay marriage but polygamy is still not ok" argument.
Well, I don't understand why this is an argument for hurting millions of innocent gay people by denying them their civil rights.
Polygamists are, right now, able to engage in an honest marriage, with a person they truly love and intend to spend their life with. Gay people don't even have that.
Frnakly, if polygamists can work out an equitable way to stretch the law so that it does what they wish (For instance, if a man has three spouses, who gets to be the decision maker with regard to his medical care? When there is only one spouse, the answer is simple.)I say let them do it, unless someone can make a pressing case why they shouldn't.
There are such a tiny number of legitimate cases where non-coerced adults would desire such a situation, it's not really worth fighting over.
[/QB]
I never said gay couples should not have civil rights, and I believe I have made this clear already. I think gay couples should be able to be joined and enjoy the same rights. What I do not understand is why people on both sides of the issue cannot come together and work out a compromise. Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else. The religious community is happy, and the gay couples that are joined together enjoy all of the same benefits. They can call it marriage if they want in the ceremony, but have it called something else on legal documents. My point is this: If you re-define marriage for one community of people, then would it not be discriminatory to not re-define marriage for another community of people?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
My point has been that the only reason you'd ever want to call it something else is because you don't want to consider it exactly like marriage. If it were exactly like marriage, you'd call it marriage.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: What I do not understand is why people on both sides of the issue cannot come together and work out a compromise. Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
I have question...how much money would it take to convince you to get a civil divorce, and get a civil union with your spouse instead?
What if you and your future spouse were at the courthouse, waiting to get your license...and the line to get a marraige license was 15 minutes long, and the line for civil unions was empty.
Are you really saying that you wouldn't wait the 15 minutes to get a marriage that you claim is exactly identical to a civil union? I don't think so. I bet you would wait a great deal longer to avoid the civil union, and get the real marrriage.
[ October 22, 2008, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: swbarnes2 ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I find OSC's rhetoric in the WW columns loathsome. Even when I agree with him, I'm ashamed to admit it because of the intellectual dishonesty he continually shows in those columns.
When the fiction starts reading like the columns I'll give it up (which is why I didn't read Empire). Until then, I'll continue to support one of my favorite authors whenever he writes something I want to read.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: [QUOTE]I never said gay couples should not have civil rights, and I believe I have made this clear already. I think gay couples should be able to be joined and enjoy the same rights. What I do not understand is why people on both sides of the issue cannot come together and work out a compromise. Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else. The religious community is happy, and the gay couples that are joined together enjoy all of the same benefits. They can call it marriage if they want in the ceremony, but have it called something else on legal documents. My point is this: If you re-define marriage for one community of people, then would it not be discriminatory to not re-define marriage for another community of people?
You've hit what is at the heart of the matter--this battle is mostly about legitimizing a lifestyle/orientation. What better way than to tap into a universal, traditional, government-supported institution of marriage?
Many against same-sex-marriage are motivated by not wanting to further legitimize homosexuality, many for it want to legitimize homosexuality. Many supporters of same-sex marriage who are gay do not want to marry (they see it as a broken institution, or too restrictive) but want to be acknowledged on equal ground with heterosexuals by having the same right (even though they have the exact same right as heterosexuals--no man can marry another man regardless of sexual orientation; but admittedly they have fewer options in their choices of mate, etc.). Thus, there really is no room for a compromise.
Of course others are for and against same-sex marriage for other reasons, but the above explanation describes enough people that a "separate but equal" type scenario won't fly.
By the way, as for the initial post, saying that all committed relationships should be equally acknowledged and sanctioned by the government sounds like a simple emotional reaction--government and society do not have the same stake in just any committed relationship; there should be some rationale for why a given relationship should be protected if not promoted due to its social good. There are volumes of studies to give justification for marriage (as it has been practiced--namely, heterosexual) and for parent-child relationships. Equating everything else with those just because of commitment is irrational.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by kacard: [QBYou guys probably all know that I read just about everything here. Mostly I patiently watch and let it go. Freedom of speech you know. Tolerance of all ideas is a big deal at our house. But every now and then my patience wears thin and this one was WAY over my edge. (Out and out lies and character assassination are hard to take first thing in the morning.)
Here is what OSC ACTUALLY has said about torture. I'm afraid your misrepresentation was more than I could take today.
Yes. That was what OSC was saying about torture BACK IN 2004.
Back when he could still hope to claim that Bush hadn't explicitly authorized torture, that it may have all been a big misunderstanding caused by Rumsfeld's temper. Even in 2006, he still ludicrously claimed "there is not a shred of evidence that America is using torture anywhere". Even when photos of a taxi-driver tortured to death in Bagram was posted online for all the world to see, OSC brazenly denied that anyone was torturing anyone anywhere.
This was again utter nonsense, and therefore in the last few years OSC has modified his beliefs accordingly. Now in http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-09-07-1.html OSC speaks about the "nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens".
As I have non-existent constitutional rights, the government is allowed to torture me.
OSC may still claim that torturing me may be *morally* wrong of course, but that doesn't stop him from considering it within the constitutional rights of his government.
He may consider torture to be bad, but that doesn't stop him from considering it his legal constitutional right. As long as the person being tortured is a foreigner, ofcourse ofcourse.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: This was again utter nonsense, and therefore in the last few years OSC has modified his beliefs accordingly. Now in http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-09-07-1.html OSC speaks about the "nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens".
... Wrong. In that essay, where he brings up the "nonexistent constitutional rights of noncitizens," torture was not mentioned, or even implied. The only paragraph that even brings up the constitutional rights of noncitizens just mentions phone-monitoring.
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: What I do not understand is why people on both sides of the issue cannot come together and work out a compromise. Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
I have question...how much money would it take to convince you to get a civil divorce, and get a civil union with your spouse instead?
What if you and your future spouse were at the courthouse, waiting to get your license...and the line to get a marraige license was 15 minutes long, and the line for civil unions was empty.
Are you really saying that you wouldn't wait the 15 minutes to get a marriage that you claim is exactly identical to a civil union? I don't think so. I bet you would wait a great deal longer to avoid the civil union, and get the real marrriage.
I see what you are trying to bait me into, and I will go ahead and play along. The answer to your question is yes. I would go to the civil union line if there was not a wait. If it provided the exact same benefit as a marriage I see no problem with it. I would still tell people I was married, and there would be nothing wrong with that.
Civil unions have taken place in numerous states already, and I doubt that couples that have been joined in this way say "This is my husband, and we have been civilly unioned for two years." I am pretty sure they would just say they are married.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
It's unusual that I'd be compelled to post a reminder when kacard is already in the thread, but to emphasize a bit -- I'd ask that some folks please tone down the rhetoric. Discuss the issues politely, without personal character attacks. Our esteemed host(s) don't prevent people from disagreeing or from posting their disagreement or disapproval here, but it's asked that it be for the purpose of discussion within the standards set here.
Thanks, folks.
--PJ
Posted by blindsay (Member # 11787) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
My point has been that the only reason you'd ever want to call it something else is because you don't want to consider it exactly like marriage. If it were exactly like marriage, you'd call it marriage.
Tom, that is totally not my intention. What I am trying to do is discuss the possibility of keeping people on both sides of the issue happy.
Let me put it this way. Besides the "flavor" you prefer what is the difference between Budweiser, Bud Lite, Guiness, Michelobe, and Heineken? They are all beers, just different names. Sure they may each taste a little different, but they are all essentially the same. What beer you drink depends on what your tastes are.
Likewise, why couldn't the type of "Union" you want be determined by what your tastes are?
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am just trying to understand your side or view.
I think both religious organizations and the gay community and their supporters to be going about this in the incorrect way. Each side thinks that they are on the correct side of the issue. They have the right to do so. I just hope that one day both sides can come together and reach a compromise.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:why couldn't the type of "Union" you want be determined by what your tastes are?
What you are suggesting is that, to keep stout drinkers happy, we prevent Heineken drinkers from calling what they drink "beer."
If the default union were called a "union," in the same way that a default beer is called a "beer," I'd concede the point. However, that is not the case. Rather, the default union is called a "marriage."
I have previously observed that if the government were to stop issuing marriage licenses and instead issue only "civil unions" to people, I'd have no objection at all.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: I would go to the civil union line if there was not a wait. If it provided the exact same benefit as a marriage I see no problem with it. I would still tell people I was married, and there would be nothing wrong with that.
You would see nothing wrong with saying that you were legally married if you weren't?
Well, can you understand that some people are honest, and don't want to have to lie?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It is of my opinion that while I dislike many of the things in World Watch I continue to find Mr Card's stories to be worth reading and unlike a certain writer Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named (*cough* Tom Clancy */cough* ) doesn't try to sneak in his political views, I found the Ender Quartet and the Shadow Series consistent, enjoyable, and comforting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The argument I hear most often against the Civil Union/Marriage split boils down to a "separate but equal argument." I'm not really sure I see them as being analagous. Clearly even in separate but equal of the Jim Crowe era, things were NOT equal. But if a Civil Union had all the exact same rights and benefits and the only thing that was different was the name, I'd call it a win and walk off the field.
swbarnes2 -
Would it really be a lie? If you were gay and walked up to someone with your same sex partner and introduced them as your wife/husband, the person you are introducing them to will know that you have a civil union and not a "marriage." It isn't like you're part of some massive conspiracy to fool people into thinking you have what you really don't.
I hesitate to say that it's only different on paper, because a lot of things on paper make all the difference in the world, but I don't think this is one of those. I don't buy into OSC's arguments on marriage either, especially that marriage has always been what he claims it is now. And in fact to others on this thread who've said so, marriage has not always been man/woman. Off the top of my head I can think of several societies that have engaged in homosexual relationships for various reasons that were legally or societally recognized.
And to briefly cover the OP in this thread, I don't know Shanna, on the one hand I agree with Dag in thinking that your only reason for posting here could have been to either drum up support or cause a ruckus. But on the other hand, I can see wanting to post a protest as being perfectly legitimate. Personally I haven't bought an OSC book recently because he hasn't written anything that looks appetizing to me. But that doesn't mean I won't buy anything in the future, regardless of how I feel about his essays. I've yet to try and rationalize my feelings about his personal views (and public essays) with the buying of his books. It all feels a bit more dramatic than it should when it comes to a seven dollar book (or whatever a paperback costs these days), but I also realize that sometimes small things matter. Maybe even more often than not.
Personally if I were gay, and if I was fighting for gay marriage, I'd publicly fiercely call for gay marriage, but settle for a civil union as a compromise. Then in 30 years, after people have gotten used to civil unions and there were stats and proof out there to back me up, I'd call for a formal change in their status to marriage. I suspect there'd be much less opposition. Rarely I think do people win these things all at once. You win them in bits and pieces with big finales.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] The argument I hear most often against the Civil Union/Marriage split boils down to a "separate but equal argument." I'm not really sure I see them as being analagous. Clearly even in separate but equal of the Jim Crowe era, things were NOT equal.
But that's not the issue. And it never was. In fact, in Kansas, a disctict court found that the black and white schools in the 50's had comparable facilities.
The point of the argument to the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court bought, was that just by making the facilites separate, you were treating the students unequally, even if the facilties themselves were comparable. There is no such thing as "separate, but equal".
quote:I hesitate to say that it's only different on paper, because a lot of things on paper make all the difference in the world, but I don't think this is one of those.
The difference between a civil union and a marriage is that one is a fundamental civil right, and the other is a bureaucratic invention concocted so that some people can be denied their fundamental civil rights, and other people won't feel quite so bad about it doing that to innocent people.
You want to say that you are married when legally you aren't that's fine. Do and say whatever you please.
But don't tell other people that they can't get married, because all they have to do is lie and say they are.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I've yet to try and rationalize my feelings about his personal views (and public essays) with the buying of his books. It all feels a bit more dramatic than it should when it comes to a seven dollar book (or whatever a paperback costs these days), but I also realize that sometimes small things matter. Maybe even more often than not.
To be perfectly honest, I've yet to buy a book since Shadow Puppets and Pastwatch for pretty much that reason.
(There a couple other factors related to the two books that weigh upon my decision too, but the point that voicing that here is somewhat different than elsewhere is one that I can sympathize with too)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The difference between a civil union and a marriage is that one is a fundamental civil right, and the other is a bureaucratic invention concocted so that some people can be denied their fundamental civil rights, and other people won't feel quite so bad about it doing that to innocent people.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. I think it's just a name. It's like saying some people get the freedom of speech, and others get freedom of talking. They're the same thing as far as what you can and can't do, and you can even SAY you have freedom of speech, but you don't, it's freedom of talking.
Don't get me wrong, I personally favor the oft talked about plan here to make ALL marriages civil unions, and then whatever you do afterwards is your own business. I'm far more interested in the legal rammifications than the diction, and that's mostly what I see it as. But at the end of the day, I'd have no problem voting in favor of allowing legalized same sex marriage.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I've yet to try and rationalize my feelings about his personal views (and public essays) with the buying of his books. It all feels a bit more dramatic than it should when it comes to a seven dollar book (or whatever a paperback costs these days), but I also realize that sometimes small things matter. Maybe even more often than not.
To be perfectly honest, I've yet to buy a book since Shadow Puppets and Pastwatch for pretty much that reason.
(There a couple other factors related to the two books that weigh upon my decision too, but the point that voicing that here is somewhat different than elsewhere is one that I can sympathize with too)
Just putting this out there (and this applies to the original poster as well), but if you enjoy the books and would have enjoyed having them in your collection who suffers more from your avoiding them, Card or you?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't actually have to answer that if part of the predicate evaluates false right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by neo-dragon:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I've yet to try and rationalize my feelings about his personal views (and public essays) with the buying of his books. It all feels a bit more dramatic than it should when it comes to a seven dollar book (or whatever a paperback costs these days), but I also realize that sometimes small things matter. Maybe even more often than not.
To be perfectly honest, I've yet to buy a book since Shadow Puppets and Pastwatch for pretty much that reason.
(There a couple other factors related to the two books that weigh upon my decision too, but the point that voicing that here is somewhat different than elsewhere is one that I can sympathize with too)
Just putting this out there (and this applies to the original poster as well), but if you enjoy the books and would have enjoyed having them in your collection who suffers more from your avoiding them, Card or you?
If I were to not buy his book, it wouldn't be because I was trying to cause him financial harm, though if I made that choice in concert with thousands of others, that might be a different ball of wax. The dollar or whatever that actually makes it to him via royalties isn't exactly going to kill him. Somehow I doubt my not buying his book will kill him, unless he's REALLY hooked on the dollar menu at McDonalds.
I guess it would be just for me personally, and about living up to my principles, but I haven't made that choice yet. Like I said, I haven't bought his books recently because of a lack of interest, not for moral reasons. Besides, like Shanna, if it was about hurting him or me, I could just borrow them from the library, at which point I don't suffer at all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You know, it's beyond tacky for people to come to this site and advertise their boycott of the site's owner.
QFT
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
I agree with Dagonee and rivka. OP is tacky, tacky, tacky.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In my case, it isn't anything like a deliberate boycott. I just don't enjoy OSC"s books anymore. I personally can't separate the hateful opinion pieces from the fiction.
I will and have recommended his books to other people (at least his earlier books). I also usually recommend that they don't read any of his columns.
It may be tacky to say so, but I am not encouraging anything and it may be useful information.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
Concerning the necessity of OP's post. It should be noted that the post was a catalyst for what I believe is a very interesting thread. From a purely rational position though this is the most effective place to state discontent as it pertains to Card's opinions. At least if you want it to generate worthwhile dialogue.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From a purely rational position though this is the most effective place to state discontent as it pertains to Card's opinions.
Isn't that what Ornery is for?
quote:At least if you want it to generate worthwhile dialogue.
Oh, nevermind.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Oh snap!
Posted by paigereader (Member # 2274) on :
scooter- not sure if I understood your post correctly. Are you saying that since my husband and I don't have children and most likely won't have any, it was "irrational" for us to marry? Also, if any thing were to happen to me, because we are legally married,no one else but my husband can make choices for me. Some relative that doesn't even know me cannot make choices to suit their own needs. That is the biggest reason I support SSM. A gay man should not have to jump through legal hoops to be able to take care of his partner. On the other hand, same laws must apply to anyone who can legally get married... divorce, custody, allomoy, etc. Take the good with the bad.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by paigereader: scooter- not sure if I understood your post correctly. Are you saying that since my husband and I don't have children and most likely won't have any, it was "irrational" for us to marry? Also, if any thing were to happen to me, because we are legally married,no one else but my husband can make choices for me. Some relative that doesn't even know me cannot make choices to suit their own needs. That is the biggest reason I support SSM. A gay man should not have to jump through legal hoops to be able to take care of his partner. On the other hand, same laws must apply to anyone who can legally get married... divorce, custody, allomoy, etc. Take the good with the bad.
No.
What is irrational is to assume that all commitments should be equally protected by the law just because they are commitments. There should be a clear public good. I am not talking about your marriage or "Joe" and "Pual's" relationship--I'm talking about large-scale social policies that affect large-scale social institutions. A heterosexual couple not having children does not change the institution of marriage--it is an exception to a rule. Changing marriage to now accommodate gay couples, is changing the rule, not a simple exception.
I realize it is kind of abstract, this rule change helps to fundamentally change the social functions of marriage in society (which has been changing already with unwed childhood and rampant divorce--but I think those are also problems for society and opine against those as well) that a relatively few childless heterosexual couples could (unless such couples became the rule). Believe it or not, I don't think this is a cut and dry issue--I find myself tugged in multiple directions because I sympathize with many arguments.
However, for me, the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society, and just talking "fairness," and "equality"--very important, fundamental principles of a civil society, I agree--isn't compelling enough for me to justify such a radical change to a social institution that needs reinforcing these days, not deconstruction.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"this rule change helps to fundamentally change the social functions of marriage in society
You have the "conservatives" argue that gay people should be able to screw with each other as much as they like, as long as its outside marriage.
And you have the liberals argue that ideally the highest level a romantic/sexual relationship can take is a marriage.
Only one of these attitudes show respect for the institution of marriage, and it's not the "conservative" one. It's the liberal one.
So, yes, Scooter, same-sex marriage may indeed be changing the role of marriage in society, by increasing its value and putting it on a higher pedestal than it has been so far.
quote:the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society
I don't know what our common grounds are here, Scooter, so I'm not certain at which level you want me to begin the discussion. For example: I feel that a self-accepting homosexual is in general healthier than a closeted self-loathing one. I don't know if you agree.
Given that initial assumption, I think it makes an easier more productive environment for gay people if society accepted (not merely "tolerated") homosexuality.
And I see marriage equality as a fundamental way for society to so accept homosexuality.
On the other hand if you feel that acceptance of homosexuality in one's self is a bad thing, then obviously we don't have that initial common ground and all the following arguments are reversed.
That's why on some level I think it's meaningless to argue with OSC on this matter : me and he are fighting for different civilizations -- he's fighting for a Christian civilization in which homosexuality is a sin and a blemish before God, and I'm fighting for a secular humanist civilization in which human beings strive to find their own way towards happy productive lives.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, for me, the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society, and just talking "fairness," and "equality"--very important, fundamental principles of a civil society, I agree--isn't compelling enough for me to justify such a radical change to a social institution that needs reinforcing these days, not deconstruction.
Leaving aside the issue of whether "fairness" and "equality" are sufficient, I would argue that both heterosexual and homosexual society would benefit from the social acceptance of monogamous, long-term homosexual relationships.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Is allowing gay marriage a ``radical change" to a social institution? For the vast majority the rights, benefits etc. are completely unchanged.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Is allowing gay marriage a ``radical change" to a social institution?
I think the truth is that it's hardly any change at all to marriage, but a huge change to society's perception of homosexual relationships. And people who don't want to see that perception change are strongly opposed to it.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Is allowing gay marriage a ``radical change" to a social institution?
I think the truth is that it's hardly any change at all to marriage, but a huge change to society's perception of homosexual relationships. And people who don't want to see that perception change are strongly opposed to it.
As you say, really, the only change (except for those actually entering a gay marriage) is that of perception. Which makes this a bit different from other equality movements (e.g. slavery, even civil rights) where the case can be made that the movement's antagonists received a tangible benefit (or avoided a tangible loss) by blocking the movement. Does this show a rise in ``selfless bigots"... or is this an indication that this issue has been cynically amplified to manufacture a wedge issue?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As you say, really, the only change (except for those actually entering a gay marriage) is that of perception.
Well, no. Two points:
1) Civil unions, by and large, don't exist either. 2) "Separate but equal" was discredited on the grounds that even if the facilities were otherwise identical, the fact that they were separate made them inherently inequal.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Sorry, I think there is a misunderstanding (or at least I don't understand your points).
To clarify: I was not weighing in on the largely semantic issue of "marriage" vs. "civil union". I was equating them. My point was this issue is not a zero sum game i.e. those wishing to enter same sex unions (marriages) receive tangible benefit by being allowed to enter into such unions, hence it is entirely rational from an economic perspective for them to desire to do so. On the other hand, those against same sex unions (marriages) do not lose anything tangible. Compare this to the emancipation movement, where those against the movement were losing their free labor force. Where, then, does this staunch opposition - that is not economically motivated - come from? Thus my comments about selfless bigots etc.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Something I've been thinking about the last couple of days is how much the assertion that marriage has historically been a financial arrangement bothers me. I mean, how many marriages, proportionally, have been financially beneficial? I'd say enough are not that it's no more valid a basis than the procreative nature that so many people dismiss.
Just had to get that off my chest.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
pooka, I think "financial arrangement" isn't necessary about financial benefits in the strict sense, it's also about financial security.
Husband dies, wife gets his pension. Parents die, the children inherit the house. That sort of thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Something I've been thinking about the last couple of days is how much the assertion that marriage has historically been a financial arrangement bothers me.
It's a pretty loaded question whose answer depends on what time period and what culture you're talking about. Any answer that anyone here could give could be refuted by an obscure, or sometimes a perfectly relevent counterargument from another part of the world.
The American idea of marriage has varied somewhat over time, but actually I think marriage in America on the whole has been far less about money than love. That's my opinion of course, and sure there are thousands of examples of power marriages between the wealthy, but those still happen to this day. I think the average middle class person in America has usually married for love, and still does to this day.
But the problem with the assertions being made about marriage on the other side of this is that marriage has ALWAYS been about one thing or another. Like since the dawn of monogamous couplings marriage has been about men and women choosing to be together to riase kids in a family. It's a ridiculous assertion. Several West African cultures had woman/woman marriages regularly, and these were purely financial arrangements. I won't even delve into the Greeks, but there's plenty to rifle through there as well. And going back thousands of years, women were married off to men to secure political alliances, or were literally sold to other men with doweries.
If opponents of gay marriage restricted their rhetoric to America since the Constitution was signed and ratified, I think they'd be on much more secure ground in a lot of ways. Because another problem with the marriage arguments is that what a lot of homosexual couples are fighting for are things like power of attorney and filing joint taxes and survivor benefits. I bet if you looked at a list of the legal protections that same sex couples want, 90% of them would be things only a modern first world nation has. It's not like 14th century English heterosexual couples were happily enjoying their social security survivor benefits as defined in Leviticus.
Marriage has been around for thousands of years without any of the modern trappings that go along with it, so I, and many others, have a hard time associating 20th century marriage rights with the oft stated "marriage since the dawn of time" arguments I keep hearing on the other side.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess we don't state it often enough. The belief is that Adam and Eve were married by God in the Garden of Eden and commanded them to go forth and multiply. I think there was also a bit about leaving father and mother to cleave unto each other, so it was also love.
The interesting part about that, and it's in Genesis 2, is the implication that Adam had parents. I dunno. One possibility this brings up is that the "creation of man" was actually the divine institution of the marriage covenant among homo sapiens. Just one way out there interpretation.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
If those who are anti-SSM want to convince the agnostics/atheists, they'll have to show that it will cause harm. I don't think it'll turn anyone gay, but, even if it does, so what? Monogamy prevents the spread of disease. Whether that's gay or straight monogamy makes little difference to the spread of disease. I also seriously doubt that SSM will substantially reduce the birth rate. Plenty of lesbians, like Melissa Etheridge, have chosen artificial insemination.
Demonstrable harm. You have to show it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, and it may be that no one is convinced. Within Mormonism there are plenty of people who are confused between charity and tolerance and the law, and whether we should accept these changes. Perhaps we should, but what people need to understand is that for the church, marriage between a man and a woman is as important for salvation as baptism by immersion.
Thinking further on it, I don't know that it was marriage per se that God imposed on Adam, but a choice between two commandments (don't partake of the fruit vs. multiplying and replenishing the earth). This is fairly specific to Mormonism, and Gene Roddenberry if you recall the first Star Trek pilot. Between freedom and peace, humans choose freedom. It makes the end of that story, when Pike's life gets crappy so he returns to the garden, problematic. I guess it worked because Spock had to break the law to make it happen, so it was still cool.
Another creation myth is that of Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Pandora. Prometheus creates man, Epimetheus creates all the animals (as Adam named them). Pandora's curiosity releases every imaginable evil into the world, save hope. The reason this parallel is not often seen is that in the Greek myth, Prometheus and Epimetheus are brothers. This is not a problem for Mormon cosmology. Prometheus gives man fire, and for this suffers eternally.
Anyway, what it comes down to is whether one believes men and women are interchangeable. Whether it should be law is a matter of demonstrable harm. How one defines demonstrable harm is pretty subjective. I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course. Is it a greater harm than homosexuals consider they suffer by not being permitted to marry? I don't suppose so.
Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course.
Do you think that there are loads of women out there lining up to give gay men the opportunity to marry them?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course. Is it a greater harm than homosexuals consider they suffer by not being permitted to marry? I don't suppose so.
Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
If you assume that equal proportions of men and women are both gay, then I don't see why it wouldn't end up a wash. Wouldn't the same number of women, given the opportunity, choose women?
But then, that's not taking into account the legions of anti-SSM folk who think that gays should enter into heterosexual marriages, have kids, and just suck it up and live with it.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
As you brought it up again ...
quote: Hmm. I've thought of a result along these lines but had no idea the effect already existed. Mostly, I think gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women. I'm pretty sure there is also such a marriage squeeze that affects Asian men.
Interrracial divorce appears to be 10 percentage points more likely (41% to 31% by this survey). They call this "not hugely so" but I guess it depends on how serious you find "marital disruption" as a social ill. There are some findings that multiracial children are more likely to suffer mood disorders (this link disputes the matter) and some say if it is the case, it is society's fault, not the family structure. Well, we've had 40 years to sort out the society end of things.
Of course, being biracial, I suppose I have made the choice to inflict these same problems on my children. The thing is, I'll at least name it for being a challenge rather than insist that the rest of society pretend we're normal, and call anyone who believes otherwise evil.
... is a bit reminiscent of the "I'm a democrat and I think they suck" school of legitimizing criticism we've seen from time to time.
Posted by Scooter (Member # 6915) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:"this rule change helps to fundamentally change the social functions of marriage in society
You have the "conservatives" argue that gay people should be able to screw with each other as much as they like, as long as its outside marriage.
And you have the liberals argue that ideally the highest level a romantic/sexual relationship can take is a marriage.
Only one of these attitudes show respect for the institution of marriage, and it's not the "conservative" one. It's the liberal one.
So, yes, Scooter, same-sex marriage may indeed be changing the role of marriage in society, by increasing its value and putting it on a higher pedestal than it has been so far.
quote:the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society
I don't know what our common grounds are here, Scooter, so I'm not certain at which level you want me to begin the discussion. For example: I feel that a self-accepting homosexual is in general healthier than a closeted self-loathing one. I don't know if you agree.
Given that initial assumption, I think it makes an easier more productive environment for gay people if society accepted (not merely "tolerated") homosexuality.
And I see marriage equality as a fundamental way for society to so accept homosexuality.
On the other hand if you feel that acceptance of homosexuality in one's self is a bad thing, then obviously we don't have that initial common ground and all the following arguments are reversed.
That's why on some level I think it's meaningless to argue with OSC on this matter : me and he are fighting for different civilizations -- he's fighting for a Christian civilization in which homosexuality is a sin and a blemish before God, and I'm fighting for a secular humanist civilization in which human beings strive to find their own way towards happy productive lives.
As far as your claims about what conservatives and liberals approve of, that is just one way to spin it--and a way to favor your opinion. To spin it another way, conservatives want to maintain the institution of marriage AND give people the right to privacy about their sex lives. Liberals have historically been more antagonistic toward government's role in marriage, and toward marriage in general (at least compared to conservatives), but all of a sudden think it is such a great thing now that SSM-has become so PC. The very people who have called marriage oppressive are now championing it as the highest commitment one can made and should thus be extended to all. I'd say liberals don't care about marriage nearly as much as they care about legitimizing homosexuality.
As you say, such legitimization can be viewed as positive or negative. I don't think it is a good justification either way for social policy, however. I think the religious thrust behind Prop 8 if due mostly to the legitimization issue, and they throw out some of the legalese to mask some of it (though I think some of it is legitimate). For me, this legitimization is inevitable anyway, but it is the shift in the functions of marriage on a societal level that concern me the most.
It is very possible that widespread SSM could strengthen marriage in some way, and it is at least as likely that it will weaken it. I think the case for weakening it has already been demonstrated with the way it has been evolving toward unpackaging sex, children, and marriage. SSM is a huge shove down that staircase. some hospitals are changing birth certificates from father and mother to parent 1 and parent 2. It is the domino effect that these policy changes create that are the biggest causes of concern, not if Martha and Janet down the road make marriage vows.
As for comments from other posters, if people cannot see a difference between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship, this conversation will continue to be in vain. Are there similarities--of course, but the inherent differences are so profound that overshadowing them by the similarities to justify a major social policy change is very unwise, in my opinion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To spin it another way, conservatives want to maintain the institution of marriage AND give people the right to privacy about their sex lives.
Um....How are you defining "conservative" here? Because it's traditionally thought, for example, that laws in states which ban sodomy or restrict the purchase of sex toys are "conservative" ones, and there's definitely no "right to privacy" being asserted there.
quote:Are there similarities--of course, but the inherent differences are so profound...
You know, I would never describe my genitals as being particularly "profound." And yet the genitals involved are pretty much the only difference guaranteed to exist between these relationships.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yeah but... like... how do they... you know... um... do it...?
Posted by Nathan2006 (Member # 9387) on :
quote:Originally posted by CG-LJ:
I am fortunate to live in a FREE Country where I can be a gay man if I so choose. It seems that with every election, my countrymen and women get further and further from the basic principals that this country was founded on, so many years ago.
Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all.
What? Seriously?
I'm sorry... I could be totally wrong, but...
Isn't that from the Superfriends?
Sorry...
I disagree with OSC very much on this issue. The pursuit of hapiness is one of my rights as a gay man, and is was guaranteed to me before there was any mention of marriage under Federal law.
However, I find it funny that people would stop reading his wonderful books because they don't like his articles. Instead, they continue to read his articles while boycotting his books, and then comment about how horrible his beliefs are on his website.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I think I might be turned to supporting homosexual marriage if it also meant repealing no-fault divorce. No more pre-nups, and make it next to impossible to get a divorce, like it used to be. Also, if a single woman gets pregnant, the man must be forced to either marry the woman or pay substantial child support or face severe penalties. If he's already married, he goes to prison. Would that be an appropriate compromise?
Concerning the OP; I'm a Christian, but I love listening to King Diamond. He's an "ordained priest of Satanism," but holy cow that's good metal. Same for Dimmu Borgir. Why must one agree with ones beliefs to appreciate and enjoy ones art? Tell me someone whose art you love, and I guarantee there's something about them you dislike or disagree with.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I think I might be turned to supporting homosexual marriage if it also meant repealing no-fault divorce. No more pre-nups, and make it next to impossible to get a divorce, like it used to be. Also, if a single woman gets pregnant, the man must be forced to either marry the woman or pay substantial child support or face severe penalties. If he's already married, he goes to prison. Would that be an appropriate compromise?
I wouldn't support that at all, but I'm curious, did you mean to be gender specific there, or would the entire onus of marriage punishment fall on men?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
The entire onus on men, yes.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, I should say that if a woman wanted a divorce, she would still have to prove some wrongdoing that would allow her to receive the divorce. But that is implied by my suggestion to repeal no-fault divorce.
Why wouldn't you support my hypothetical?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A half dozen reasons off the top of my head, but hey, I'll toss thing you said in there that I like too:
1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever? What if they have kids and their fighting is tearing the house apart? My parents fought a lot when I was younger, and their divorce was probably the best thing that ever happened to our family. Perhaps mine is a special circumstance, since most of my friends when I was growing up took about two years to realize my parents were even divorced because they were on such good terms. But sometimes a divorce can drastically improve a situation, and maybe sometimes parents should stick it out, but making it nearly impossible to get divorced I think does service to no one at all. You're either potentially making the couple suffer needlessly, or making an entire family suffer with no exit. Who are you trying to help?
2. On your single woman gets pregnant thing: Ridiculous. What if the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does? It's not just about the man being forced to do something. Would the woman be forced to marry him as well? What if she wanted to walk away, would she have to pay the same "substantial child support" payments or face severe penalties? And I'll repeat a theme here: how does this better serve society? Two people that might have nothing in common or any desire to see each other again in a few days would be forced to spend a life together and raise a child?
3. Your punishment of already married men seems totally counterintuitive. If he's already married he goes to jail? Okay, so who is paying your "substantial child support" payments of this guy is in jail and without a job? You could possibly be stranding not one but TWO families with such an automatic punishment. How is society served not only by having two families only half funded, but by ALSO having society pay to incarcerate the same guy who isn't paying for his families? It's a double whammy!
4. What about if a woman cheats on a man? What if a woman cheats on a man and gets herself pregnant with another man's baby? Off to jail with her? Can she have the baby first? Does the other guy have to go to jail too? Would the other guy have to pay child support to the actual husband, OR, would the husband actually have to pay child support to the real father after the wife went to jail and he took custody?
5. Let me sum up: What's your point? What would you be trying to accomplish with such a dramatic government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry, and for that matter, how do you reconcile such an intrusion with a supposedly conservative personal ideology? It seems to be conservatives want government's hands out of the wallets and in their bedrooms. Personally I'd rather they take my money and build a bridge rather than tell me who I can and can't marry.
The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married. But that's just a gut reaction to the issue. In reality I recognize the possible need for some sort of legal apparatus to do what pre-nups do, I'm just not sure I like them as they stand.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
First, let me say that I came up with all that (as per usual) as I was writing it. But (as per usual) let me try to defend my hypothetical anyway. I'll get to How This Serves Society at the end.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A half dozen reasons off the top of my head, but hey, I'll toss thing you said in there that I like too:
1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever? What if they have kids and their fighting is tearing the house apart? My parents fought a lot when I was younger, and their divorce was probably the best thing that ever happened to our family. Perhaps mine is a special circumstance, since most of my friends when I was growing up took about two years to realize my parents were even divorced because they were on such good terms. But sometimes a divorce can drastically improve a situation, and maybe sometimes parents should stick it out, but making it nearly impossible to get divorced I think does service to no one at all. You're either potentially making the couple suffer needlessly, or making an entire family suffer with no exit. Who are you trying to help?
Ok, not next to impossible, but no-fault is out. If you both parties can agree that they should no longer be married and can arrange a suitable deal, then it should be easier. If only one is seeking the divorce and he or she can show that everyone would be significantly better off if a divorce is granted, then good. If children are involved, their welfare must be take priority. If one of the spouses wants a divorce and his or her reasons have to do with simply being unhappy, or falling out of love with the other, or wanting to marry someone else, too bad. If it's because the other cheated and this can be proven, divorce is granted but mandatory sentencing for adultery. More on that later.
quote:2. On your single woman gets pregnant thing: Ridiculous. What if the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does? It's not just about the man being forced to do something. Would the woman be forced to marry him as well? What if she wanted to walk away, would she have to pay the same "substantial child support" payments or face severe penalties? And I'll repeat a theme here: how does this better serve society? Two people that might have nothing in common or any desire to see each other again in a few days would be forced to spend a life together and raise a child?
In all circumstances marriage is agreed upon by both parties, and this was so obvious to me that I neglected to say so. If the man doesn't want to marry the woman, he must pay a substantial portion of his income to the mother of his child. If he is willing but she is not, then he does not have to pay as much, maybe just enough to cover half the costs of the child's expenses, starting with a base amount and taking into account both parents' income. If she has the baby but doesn't want it and the man does, she pays child support. And if they didn't want to face the prospect of having a baby and a life together, they shouldn't be having sex.
But he used a condom, and she was on birth control! Oh well, you take your chances in life sometimes.
quote:3. Your punishment of already married men seems totally counterintuitive. If he's already married he goes to jail? Okay, so who is paying your "substantial child support" payments of this guy is in jail and without a job? You could possibly be stranding not one but TWO families with such an automatic punishment. How is society served not only by having two families only half funded, but by ALSO having society pay to incarcerate the same guy who isn't paying for his families? It's a double whammy! [quote] Adultery should be a crime punishable by a substantial fine and/or a goodly amount of time in jail. Don't wanna pay the fine or do the time? Don't do the crime. Sucks for everyone involved, but punishment should be a deterrent. This serves society by lowering the overall instances of infractions resulting in out-of wedlock children who are much more likely than average to grow up poor and uneducated, thereby continuing the accelerating cycle.[quote]
4. What about if a woman cheats on a man? What if a woman cheats on a man and gets herself pregnant with another man's baby? Off to jail with her? Can she have the baby first? Does the other guy have to go to jail too? Would the other guy have to pay child support to the actual husband, OR, would the husband actually have to pay child support to the real father after the wife went to jail and he took custody?
If a married woman cheats and gets pregnant, that is grounds for divorce. The husband is not responsible whatsoever for the child, and I don't know why you thought he might be. The man who got her pregnant is guilty of adultery if it can be proven he knew she was married and is punished. If she keeps the baby, she avoids jail. If she gives up the baby to the father and he accepts it, he avoids jail (she doesn't, though she may get off with a fine.)
quote:5. Let me sum up: What's your point? What would you be trying to accomplish with such a dramatic government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry, and for that matter, how do you reconcile such an intrusion with a supposedly conservative personal ideology? It seems to be conservatives want government's hands out of the wallets and in their bedrooms. Personally I'd rather they take my money and build a bridge rather than tell me who I can and can't marry.
Other than wanton, reckless, consequence-free promiscuity, can you identify any substantial contributing cause of out-of wedlock children who likely grow up in poverty, receive little education of value, are more likely to resort to crime, and end up filling our courts and prisons and costing taxpayers WAY more money than any of the complaints you made above? This is in spite of the millions of abortions performed in this country every year. This is not an invasion of privacy. If you don't want the government involved, don't get let them get involved. Don't file the required paperwork. If you want that guy to pay and he wont marry you, then I guess you better make a report. And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
I'm not suggesting Sharia Law here. I'm just saying some accountability should be instituted.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
I don't think so. He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation. "This woman annoys me the way she always picks at her toenails on the couch, so I'm divorcing her. But I'm rich and I don't want to give her half." Well you shouldn't have married someone if you're so fickle about your taste in women!
Besides, if you earned all your money while you were married to her, why shouldn't she get half, especially if you're the one seeking the divorce? If you were rich beforehand, then she only gets half of your earnings since the start of the marriage anyway. At least, that's the way I understand it to work; I could be wrong about that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
This still doesn't address the core problem submitted to you about this proposal: in the event that a married man cheats on his wife and impregnates someone else, you now have two single-parent households and a father who, while incarcerated, has no way to pay support to either.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: If one of the spouses wants a divorce and his or her reasons have to do with simply being unhappy, or falling out of love with the other, or wanting to marry someone else, too bad.
I think that this would probably lead to an increase in spousal murders. More to the point - this wouldn’t actually lead to less marriage break-ups. You don’t have to get a divorce to leave a partner and family in order to go and live with someone else.
I wouldn’t be surprised if removing the possibility of relatively easy divorce lowered the marriage rate hugely anyway. After all, one of the reasons that some couples live together for many years before marriage is that they don’t want to make a mistake which then leads them to a potentially expensive divorce. Making divorce nearly impossible would almost certainly encourage more people to take this route instead of the traditional one espoused (sorry) by most Christians.
quote: If she keeps the baby, she avoids jail. If she gives up the baby to the father and he accepts it, he avoids jail (she doesn't, though she may get off with a fine.)
So - aside to the problems with this already pointed out - instead of worrying about the welfare of the child, the couple (both terrified of prison) fight over the custody of the baby in order to escape a criminal record. How many women would reasonably rather go to jail than raise her kid? Especially considering that not only would she lose her freedom, but would also perminantly damage her employment and educational prospects? So it would, in most cases, be the dad in jail.
As for fining the mother while jailing the father - what has the father done in making this baby that is worse than her part? As my mother likes to say, it takes two to tango.
Have you considered the impact this would have on the child - knowing that by their very existence, they had blighted the life of at least one of their parents, and that the other one might only be raising them so that they don't get banged up?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation.
Then I think both you and Lyrhawn are seriously uninformed about the range of prenups. Not all of them have to do (solely or even primarily) with money; not all of them have to do with what happens if the couple divorces. Some are specifically to encourage the couple to avoid a divorce.
Also, you get car insurance if you plan to drive. Maybe you just shouldn't drive if you're that insecure about your driving.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Getting back to the matter of demonstrable harm, I don't know if the government should be based on "An ye harm none, do what ye will."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why not? Literally, what harm could it do?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
No not really. The first statement covers a wide, wide range of possible situations. Maybe everything seems right when you get married at 20 but when you're 40, you've grown apart and should be allowed to get divorced. It doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't have gotten married to begin with or that you didn't know each other well enough, it means people change, and people sometimes fall out of love, and sometimes people find they aren't cut out for the mechanics of marriage.
In fact, I think those two stances complement each other in this way: Some people probably shouldn't get married, but that's all the more reason to allow them to divorce afterwards and not force them to stay together. I think the opposing argument is that people just won't get married if they know they'll be stuck together, but I absolutely don't trust to that threat. People make such mistakes all the time regardless of the threat, and I think actually going through with the threat often does more harm than good.
quote:Originally posted by Resh: Other than wanton, reckless, consequence-free promiscuity, can you identify any substantial contributing cause of out-of wedlock children who likely grow up in poverty, receive little education of value, are more likely to resort to crime, and end up filling our courts and prisons and costing taxpayers WAY more money than any of the complaints you made above? This is in spite of the millions of abortions performed in this country every year. This is not an invasion of privacy. If you don't want the government involved, don't get let them get involved. Don't file the required paperwork. If you want that guy to pay and he wont marry you, then I guess you better make a report. And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
Do you have any data to back up the multitude of assertions you just made?
I don't have any on hand, but to bring back a point you didn't address earlier, how are you solving anything if you're jailing cheating husbands and wives left and right and yet claim that their financial contributions are going to solve the problem? You're taking two families and reducing their income by half. Plus the taxpayers are on the line for the cost of incarceration, which is a massive cost. Explain to me how the math adds up there as a net gain for these children. Now they don't get ANY child support and they have a parent in jail!
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation.
Then I think both you and Lyrhawn are seriously uninformed about the range of prenups. Not all of them have to do (solely or even primarily) with money; not all of them have to do with what happens if the couple divorces. Some are specifically to encourage the couple to avoid a divorce.
Also, you get car insurance if you plan to drive. Maybe you just shouldn't drive if you're that insecure about your driving.
Car insurance is an interesting analogy, but I think you tagged the wrong end of it. I'm not particularly worried about my driving, I'm worried about everyone else. The connection there being, maybe you know yourself, but you don't really know the person you're marrying (which is sort of where the analogy falls apart I think, but it's still not a bad one).
But that's really neither here nor there. While I freely admit that my knowledge of prenups is not far reaching, Resh didn't really nail down my argument correctly. My problem with prenups is really an extension of my problem with how divorces tend to settle assets in a marriage, and thus my problem with prenups I guess is more a problem with a specific category, rather than the practice as a whole. Besides, he was for a wholesale ban on them, I just wanted to take a look at them for a possible fix. Before I'd suggest any specific change, I'd want to get into facts and figures and how it actually works. Perhaps I overstated myself earlier.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
People are missing the most important thing Resh has ever said here:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: First, let me say that I came up with all that (as per usual) as I was writing it.
Color me unsurprised.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lyr, if you think it is ever possible to really know another person to the extent that there is no way, no how that a divorce might be the best option 20 years down the line, you are living in a fantasy world. There are no guarantees.
Also, people who think car insurance is only about the other guy are generally guilty of overconfidence.
All this leaves aside the fact that I can see no legal justification for the government to stick their fingers in what types of prenups are allowed (except for the restrictions that exist on any contract).
Posted by Unicorn Feelings (Member # 11784) on :
Is there any social or scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society? Or is it just based on the Bible and the Qu'ran?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: Is there any social or scientific evidence that homosexuality is harmful to society? Or is it just based on the Bible and the Qu'ran?
Get the people of the world to agree on one fundamental of a "good society" and you might be able to answer that question.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lyr, if you think it is ever possible to really know another person to the extent that there is no way, no how that a divorce might be the best option 20 years down the line, you are living in a fantasy world. There are no guarantees.
I don't know where you got that from. Did you not read this:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Maybe everything seems right when you get married at 20 but when you're 40, you've grown apart and should be allowed to get divorced. It doesn't automatically mean you shouldn't have gotten married to begin with or that you didn't know each other well enough, it means people change, and people sometimes fall out of love, and sometimes people find they aren't cut out for the mechanics of marriage.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And yet you're against prenups.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not a blanket ban, no, I'm not. Now that I've thought about it more, my concern has far less to do with prenups than it does with how assets are allocated in a divorce, which is also something I don't know enough about to suggest policy changes, I'd have to get more into it.
But even if I was, what's your point?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:But even if I was, what's your point?
Either you think divorces should never happen, or you realize they sometimes do and insure yourself against that possible eventuality.
As for the allocation of assets, there are 50 states, and the rules are different in each. Not to mention the discretion of the court and the difference a good attorney (for some value of "good", anyway ) can make.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My thought is, if you married somebody that you can't have an amicable divorce with, without attorneys, that says something about your ability to pick a spouse. To some degree, I think it has to, right?
My ex and I certainly didn't use attorneys. She downloaded a sample agreement off a website, we both signed it, and that was that. We're still friends, 7 years later.
Seriously, I don't understand marrying someone, then going ape and trying to take every penny, the house, the car, etc., or trying to withhold everything from them. I don't know.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:But even if I was, what's your point?
Either you think divorces should never happen, or you realize they sometimes do and insure yourself against that possible eventuality.
What is the percentage of married people that get a prenup before they get married? Do you think that everyone should get one? Why not do away with them and just sell marriage insurance?
quote:As for the allocation of assets, there are 50 states, and the rules are different in each. Not to mention the discretion of the court and the difference a good attorney (for some value of "good", anyway ) can make.
Yeah, that's part of why I don't want to tangle with it, as it varies so much, and because the rules seem to matter a lot less than how a judge is feeling that day and how much money you have to spend on whatever level of lawyer you can afford. But again, I have mostly anecdotal experience with the whole thing, and much of my experience by way of others has been very, very bad. I'm sure I'll learn all about it if I ever get to law school, but until then, I'm not exactly writing my congressman about it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you think that everyone should get one?
Actually, yes. Again, I'm not just talking about division of assets; I'm talking about explicit agreements about custody, steps agreed to before a divorce (such as counseling), etc. Many religious and other groups push specific prenups as part of premarital counseling.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Why not do away with them and just sell marriage insurance?
Firstly, I'd like to see an insurance company that is willing to take that kind of risk.
But more importantly, it wouldn't do the trick. Because the prenup ought not to be just about the money.
quote:Originally posted by steven: My thought is, if you married somebody that you can't have an amicable divorce with, without attorneys, that says something about your ability to pick a spouse. To some degree, I think it has to, right?
Yup. If you'd picked someone who absolutely refuses to get a divorce, no matter what, you wouldn't be getting a divorce.
Not all divorces with lawyers are non-amicable. There are in fact lawyers that specifically have philosophies and practices that promote working with the other party, rather than oppositionally. Using a moderation service often means three lawyers (yours, mine, and ours), but is often useful. There's quite a long way between so-buddy-buddy-everyone-wonders-why-the-divorce and cannot-be-in-the-same-room-without-clawing-each-other's-eyes-out.
In many states, a child or children mean that divorce-from-a-kit is not an option (unless one parent is completely willing to yield all parental rights, and often not even then). And in any case involving real estate or other significant financial assets, getting a divorce without an attorney's advice is just plain stupid.
A large part of the reason I am on good terms with my ex is because of my lawyer and the moderators we used.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Firstly, I'd like to see an insurance company that is willing to take that kind of risk.
But more importantly, it wouldn't do the trick. Because the prenup ought not to be just about the money.
I was kidding about divorce insurance. You figure half if slightly less than half of all marriages end in divorce, that all the successful marriages would pay for the failed ones with a little set aside for profit. I'm just trying to think of a catchy title for the insurance company.
quote:Actually, yes. Again, I'm not just talking about division of assets; I'm talking about explicit agreements about custody, steps agreed to before a divorce (such as counseling), etc. Many religious and other groups push specific prenups as part of premarital counseling.
Actually, I agree with that, wholeheartedly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Timothy (Member # 8491) on :
Back to the original discussion -
I believe the heart of the problem lies directly in the defition of marriage. I would wager a majority of those against same-sex marriage are against it because of their personal beliefs of what marriage means. This is further complicated by the issue that most religions have their own rules regarding marriage, and the government is trying to define it in purely secular terms.
Until there is a unifying definition of marriage, this topic will always have people on all sides of the issue.
I think one of the 'best' solutions would be along the lines of a civil union. Each religion could define marriage within their own terms, but for legal issues (inheritance, medical decisions, etc), you would be required to join a civil union as defined by the government. A civil union would be stricty an agreement between you, your partner, and the community. Keep in mind that this is a free country, and some may disagree with your decisions, but you have the right to them.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Really, I think that's most of what the religious opponents to marriage are looking for. They use the word marriage in a specific way that means specific things, and they want to be able to use their language to pass their beliefs and culture on to their children. A public policy, applicable to everyone in the country, that redefines the language puts an obstacle in their way, and makes the survival of their culture that much harder to achieve.
If the word "marriage" were reserved for individual subcultures to use and define as they wished, and if the government used a separate, sterile term for the rules and contracts that it makes available to all, then I think everyone would have most of what they want, and the debate would move on from "what should the law allow?" to "what are our religious and philisophical disagreements about what each of us is calling 'marriage'?" which will still be a hotly-contested topic, but no one will be "the injured party" anymore, some urgent emotions might calm down a bit, and we might be able to make some fruitful progress in the discussion.
On the polygamy thing, while I can't directly support gay marriage OR polygamy because of my religious convictions, I really do have trouble seeing the difference, legally, between the two. Why one deserves tolerance, and is fought for so vehemently, while the other is held in contempt by the same people.
The whole "counting penises versus counting heads" argument is annoying, first of all, because you could just as easily say "counting Y chromosomes", but "counting penises" artificially makes your opponent's position sound ludicrous by tapping into readers' fourth-grade "giggle factor" about the word "penis". Come on.
But seriously, though. I know my reasons for disagreeing with both gay marriage and polygamy, but I don't understand how most of the arguments in favor of gay marriage don't also apply to polygamy. Historically, polygamy has been tolerated by human societies much more often than homosexual marriage. If the genders of the participants in a marriage ought to now be treated as arbitrary and irrelevant, then why are numbers still so terribly important?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:A public policy, applicable to everyone in the country, that redefines the language puts an obstacle in their way, and makes the survival of their culture that much harder to achieve.
You'll have to forgive me, but I find the idea of there being any doubt as to the "survival of their culture" utterly laughable.
I get your argument, but come on, Christianity, to say nothing of religion itself, has been around for 2,000 years. It's not going to anywhere because gays can get married and actually call it married. A semantic achievement isn't going to undo the fabric of Christian life in this country.
I'd buy that argument if you were railing against the moral decline in pop culture, and given the steep downward spiral of the last decade, you might even be able to pull me on board that one, maybe. But the government isn't there to enable parents to better indoctrinate their children.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why one deserves tolerance, and is fought for so vehemently, while the other is held in contempt by the same people.
In all fairness, I'm willing to fight for both same-sex marriage and polygamy.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Polygamy is much easier to prove demonstrable harm with.
Edited for spelling. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:But the government isn't there to enable parents to better indoctrinate their children.
The government isn't there to enable it, but it also isn't there to hinder it. "Indoctrinating" children with culture is one of the most important processes in mankind's survival strategy. Human society survives and evolves as those cultures with the strongest survival value succeed in passing on their cultural values to their children. Making the decision to hinder one culture's ability to pass on their values should not be taken lightly.
Already, cultural beliefs or practices that exclude gay marriage are difficult to articulate in many places without getting shouted out of the room. Within a couple of generations, I suspect that the only cultures that survive in America will be those that either accept gay marriage, or have other mechanisms that allow them to thrive in the midst of vehement opposition. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is a destructive thing for those cultures affected, and you can't fault them for resisting it. You certainly can't fault them for wanting the government not to forcibly perpetrate it.
And it isn't Christianity, specifically, that I'm talking about. "Christianity", as a name, will probably survive for millenia more. But it will mean different things in different centuries, and not every change will be for the better.
quote:I'd buy that argument if you were railing against the moral decline in pop culture, and given the steep downward spiral of the last decade, you might even be able to pull me on board that one, maybe.
Who says I'm not? This bulletin-board topic has a fairly limited scope.
In any case, the problem with artificially hindering a culture's ability to promulgate itself is similar to the problem with altering an ecosystem. You can't be certain, always, if the thing you're changing had some important survival value that, with your limited knowledge, you were unable to predict and compensate for.
I think it is a much more prudent course for the government to leave in place the tools that both conservative religious cultures and secular liberal cultures need to replicate themselves, and let them survive or not based on their own merits.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Polygamy is much easier to prove demonstrable harm with.
Demonstrable harm in individual cases, or for all participants?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think the real perceived difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that there doesn't appear to be anyone whose sexual identity is defined as "only attracted to a number of people at once." Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, that and the fact that we're only roughly 58 years out from polygamy and the depictions of the practice from that time are hardly appealing, to say the least. Plus, the people that do get caught in the practice today do not tend to be very sympathetic.
I suppose that its possible that this could be a result of unfair sampling and so I'm willing to sit on the fence on this one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The government isn't there to enable it, but it also isn't there to hinder it.
I don't accept that as an absolute. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of expression, equality for all under the eyes of the law; all of those things make it harder to parents to imprint their children with a specifically desired set of ideas and beliefs. Those things are a hinderance, but they're also protected more than anything else in our society, and we fight wars to protect them here and abroad. I believe that government shouldn't actively hinder parents' efforts, but sometimes it can happen anyway as a consequence of their main role, which is guarantor of our freedoms.
What do you do when the very basis of your government enables the evolution of your culture into something you might not like? The answer seems to be a peaceful albeit aggressive political push back. And I don't have a problem with that. Maybe some of the rhetoric is a little strong, and some people might have a problem with the tactics, but they're going about it constitutionally, and when they lose, they don't riot, they don't call for revolution, they just lament what they lost and work harder. There's something admirable in that.
quote:Who says I'm not? This bulletin-board topic has a fairly limited scope.
Well, you're certainly free to, I just didn't hear you make that argument specifically.
quote:I think it is a much more prudent course for the government to leave in place the tools that both conservative religious cultures and secular liberal cultures need to replicate themselves, and let them survive or not based on their own merits.
That's a complicated idea. It might sound simple, but given America's history and the way our government is set up and our culture was founded. And for that matter, I don't think either side is willing to die a slow death based on the argument that they just weren't good enough to survive.
And for that matter, the paragraph quoted above can mean two things to two different people. I think you'd intend for it to be a laissez-faire government approach to culture, but the other side might easily see those tools as their avenue to further their cultural ideas. Both sides are using those tools, and thus the government, to try and protect and promulgate their cultures where they meet resistance.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Wow Puppy, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Actually, it's very close to my own beliefs... well, except for the fact that I don't have any particular moral problems with gay marriage or polygamy.
Still, we're supposed to live in a country with a separation of church and state. This is JUST as important to the preservation of church as it is to the preservation of state. (History shows us that quite often when this division was not in place, politics took a very active role in religion!)
Marriage, in a legal sense, is nothing more than a contract that can often be terminated with less hassle than it takes to chance cell phone companies. This is not what ANY religion I know of has ever intended for the word marriage! In fact some churches (including the church I grew up in) refuse to acknowledge civil divorces, and will not allow divorced spouses to remarry (other people) within the church.
So why not make it simple and take the world "marriage" out of the civil code altogether, just like you suggested. Then everyone could go on to their happy little homes and define marriage however they want. If your beliefs and culture allow you to marry men or women, so be it. If you're allowed to have ten wives (or ten husbands) then so be it.
I was absolutely shocked when I discovered that Polygamy laws (at least in Texas) can be applied even when there is only one LEGAL marriage. I was appalled that the law could prosecute men for having a religious leader pronounce them married to multiple women (who they SUPPORTED) even if they didn't ask for civil protection of the union. (I'm not commenting here on any of the age issues associated with this.) I mean, if a man goes around poking himself into a different woman every night, the law says nothing - but if he has a dozen that he calls wife, and shelters, then he's a criminal? There's something seriously wrong with that picture, and I think it all has to do with semantics.
I wonder, what would happen if someone actually put forth a bill to remove the world "marriage" from family law. Who wants to try it? After all, there is president. The word "idiot" has only recently been removed from the legal codes of many states!
Posted by Mercury (Member # 11822) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Polygamy is much easier to prove demonstrable harm with.
Edited for spelling.
I'd be interested to hear how. I understand the problems it has created in the form of underaged marriage, and other despicable acts. But that's not a problem specific to polygamy. In fact, I would feel comfortable wagering there are far more cases of that activity outside of polygamy. Arguably it's the secrecy involved that leads to these problems. Polygamy can easily be legalized without legalizing the more nefarious aspects associated with the practice. It seems to me that it is hypocritical to be in favor of gay marriage and not polygamy.
That said, I personally have no opposition to either. Religiously, I believe the only marriage sanctioned by God is between a man and a woman and nothing more. But legally, I do not believe either should be hindered.
Also, to the original post, if someone chooses to protest, that's their business. I didn't agree with what OSC said, but I also don't think his comments caused any fear or panic. Is there any actual evidence his words have elicited fearful or panicked response? It seems to me it is a simple matter of differing opinion.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I think the real perceived difference between polygamy and homosexuality is that there doesn't appear to be anyone whose sexual identity is defined as "only attracted to a number of people at once."
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) can make.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You figure half if slightly less than half of all marriages end in divorce, that all the successful marriages would pay for the failed ones with a little set aside for profit. I'm just trying to think of a catchy title for the insurance company. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Polygamy is much easier to prove demonstrable harm with.![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)