quote:Defiant San Francisco Marries Dozens of Same-Sex Couples Fri Feb 13, 7:55 AM ET Add Top Stories - Los Angeles Times to My Yahoo!
By Lee Romney Times Staff Writer
SAN FRANCISCO — This bastion of gay rights issued the first same-sex marriage licenses in the nation Thursday, beginning with a lesbian couple whose marriage pushed the city into the center of an intensifying national debate and promised a legal showdown.
SAN FRANCISCO - Despite accusations that the mayor is riding roughshod over the law, conservative groups failed to stop San Francisco from issuing same-sex marriage licenses Friday as hundreds more gay couples rushed to tie the knot before the opportunity slipped away.
All day long, the marble passages beneath City Hall's ornate gold dome echoed with applause as one couple after another got hitched, promising to be "spouses for life." As of Friday afternoon, 489 couples had gotten married.
I can't believe nobody's linked this yet. Needless to say, I'm insufferably proud of San Francisco right now. And in love with Gavin Newsom. What a god of a man. I haven't been this affectionate for a politician since Feingold.
Heh, god, it's a good day to be a Californian. I'm so freaking proud.
Doesn't this whole thing read like a bad Hollywood movie? The cliche, inane villain preaching against love and the triumph of unrequited love over all barriers? Heh, jesus. What a good day. Go Newsom, go Newsom, it's a wedding day, go Newsom...
And props to Massachusetts, too. Definitely an inspiration to the rest of the country.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And what I really love about this is, once this catches fire, there's no way bigots can repeal the marriages. No more than they could take voting rights away from the blacks -- once granted, you can't take rights away without being painfully explicit about your prejudice, and right now the GOP's at least trying to pretend their anti-homosexual policies are based on secular reasoning. What that reasoning is is pretty freaking vague, if it's ever been mentioned at all, but to fight this they'll have to resort to God-hates-fags.
Repent or perish, sinners!
Heh. Forgive me, I'm a bit giddy. I love this new mayor. Newsom for governor!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
BOOYAH!!!!!!!
Sorry, I saw "in your face" and I got all wild.
Anyway, I agree. I had lost all hope in all types of governments and officials. This proves that there are actually people out there who aren't only doing things to advance their careers.
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
I'm all for gay marriages. AND adoption by gay couples. It'll catch on eventually, we might as well open our minds about it now and save everyone drama!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I think that fighting against gay rights is a losing battle. The younger generation must be something like 75% for it, its primarily the older conservative types who are against it.
The kids growing up now have even more exposure to homosexuals than my generation did. When they get to be voting age, it will be a no brainer for them that homosexuals should be able to get married.
In 25-30 years, I'll bet the kids will wonder what all the fuss was about, and look back on the debate much like we look back on the civil rights movement.
We look back on those opposed to civil rights for women and minorities and wonder what they were thinking in denying equal rights for people for very little reason. But even those who see the opponents of civil rights as achaic now, cannot see that they are just as much in the wrong now as those folks were back then.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:In 25-30 years, I'll bet the kids will wonder what all the fuss was about, and look back on the debate much like we look back on the civil rights movement.
Two things:
1) Some of us already look at this and wonder what all the fuss is about.
2) If people are still worrying about this in 25 years, that will be a very very sad commentary on our country and our values.
I believe the mayor of SF has done a very bold thing. I hope that this will not come back to bite them all, though. The GOP does not take kindly to open rebellion.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I agree Bob, but was trying to make a general comment. If I were to say that almost all young people feel that way now, I don't think it would be an accurate comment. One of my roommates is against gay marriage, almost exclusively because of the "ick" factor. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The only thing that worries me is the timing. I find myself wishing the marriage issue could have waited to come to a head sometime after November.
I think it's the future, too, and pretty inevitable. I know one gay couple that has been together over 30 years and it's ridiculous that they can't get married if they want. Diane and I have about 23 years to go to match that longevity. (We're not married, but that's our choice.)
Nevertheless, it's the kind of issue that the population is really divided on and that conservatives are adept at using to their advantage. I know it's wrong, but I think of all the states that were close calls in the last election and wonder what the factors will be in the thin percentages this year.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So you're proud of a city government blatantly ignoring the law and the will of the people?
What would you say if some city decided to ignore the courts and just started arresting all doctors performing abortions? Or what would you say if Bush just decided to start arresting anti-war protesters because he personally felt free speech shouldn't apply? Or, while we're at, what if some radical town in Texas decided the immigrant problem is out of hand and just decided on their own to start executing all the Mexican-looking folks they could find?
Yay - let's all just do whatever we want, and forget the law!
Also...
Cut out the name-calling. You can't possibly be complaining about bigotry when you, yourself, are going around calling whole groups of people "inept villains preaching against love".
[ February 14, 2004, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh. Tres, quit being so silly.
quote:So you're proud of a city government blatantly ignoring the law and the will of the people?
In this case? Yes, immensely so. Aren't you? If a government insisted on passing ridiculous, bigoted laws like those you described above, and a city took a stand against those laws -- wouldn't you be proud?
Go Newsom. My newest hero.
quote:What would you say if some city decided to ignore the courts and just started arresting all doctors performing abortions? Or what would you say if Bush just decided to start arresting anti-war protesters because he personally felt free speech shouldn't apply? Or, while we're at, what if some radical town in Texas decided the immigrant problem is out of hand and just decided on their own to start executing all the Mexican-looking folks they could find?
Yay - let's all just do whatever we want, and forget the law!
Ha ha! Silly Tres! You've obviously read nothing on this issue -- Newsom's basing this stance from the California Constitution's promise of equal treatment for every citizen. It's not arbitrary, like every wacky law you just proposed. If anything, it's exactly what every court across the country should be saying (except in MA, where they are saying it). No more preferential treatment of sexualities or legal persecution of homosexuals. No more mingling of righteous religious bigotry with the dealings of government. Damn good for Newsom. Damn good for Massachusetts. Damn, it feels good to be proud to be an American.
quote:Also...
Cut out the name-calling. You can't possibly be complaining about bigotry when you, yourself, are going around calling whole groups of people "inept villains preaching against love".
Actually, I said this whole drama is set like a bad Hollywood movie -- "the cliche, inane villain preaching against love" actually exists, and today marks the "the triumph of unrequited love over all barriers." All we need is bad comic relief and a touching moment at the end of the film where the heros and heroines kiss, and life will go on happily ever after.
And face it, anti-homosexuals are pretty cliche villains that I didn't think could exist in the real world. They want to keep homosexuals from marrying. They don't even have the excuses of the Montagues and the Capulets; they're just, quite literally, anti-love, for so long as that love doesn't fall in their approval. Isn't that rather pathetic? Doesn't that bring back memories of interracial couples loving each other despite popular hatred of intermingled races? Doesn't the fight against such persecution inspire you?
Heh. I'm so damn happy about this. Equal rights have been a long time in the making, but they're finally coming a few steps closer to realization.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ha ha! Silly Tres! You've obviously read nothing on this issue -- Newsom's basing this stance from the California Constitution's promise of equal treatment for every citizen. It's not arbitrary, like every wacky law you just proposed.
Everything I proposed is consistent with some reading of the Constitution.
quote:If a government insisted on passing ridiculous, bigoted laws like those you described above, and a city took a stand against those laws -- wouldn't you be proud?
No, especially not over an issue as silly as the term we use to describe a couple's relationship.
This already happened once this year. Don't you remember the judge who refused to take the 10 Commandments out of his courtroom after they were ruled illegal? Did you feel the judge had the right to do that?
This case should be treated just the same. The city should be fined severely to start out with, and should face even higher penalties if they insist on continuing with their illegal practice. Having a political position does not give you the right to ignore the law and instead enforce your own personal opinion.
This situation is especially bad because the gay couples are likely going to be screwed over in the end, because they will think they are married when, in reality, they aren't. All the city is doing is lying to them about it's authority to wed them. But no court anywhere is going to hold up a marriage that is directly contrary to the law - not even if at some point in the future the law has to be changed. It's the equivalent of protesting the death penalty by telling convicts they have been freed, knowing that they will get killed nevertheless.
quote:And face it, anti-homosexuals are pretty cliche villains that I didn't think could exist in the real world. They want to keep homosexuals from marrying.
Only in the way pro-choice folk are cliche villains for wanting to kill babies.
[ February 14, 2004, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:This case should be treated just the same. The city should be fined severely to start out with, and should face even higher penalties if they insist on continuing with their illegal practice. Having a political position does not give you the right to ignore the law and instead enforce your own personal opinion.
This situation is especially bad because the gay couples are likely going to be screwed over in the end, because they will think they are married when, in reality, they aren't. All the city is doing is lying to them about it's authority to wed them. But no court anywhere is going to hold up a marriage that is directly contrary against the law - not even if at some point in the future the law has to be changed.
That's exactly what I'm concerned about too.
I applaud their taking a stand, but this is not going to end well.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I have no problem with San Francisco breaking these laws. Why? Because the laws(or their current interpretation) exist for no reason other than prejudice. Allowing homosexual couples to become married harms no one. There's no logical reason to keep them from the right to marry except for long held prejudices.
It's exactly the same as allowing blacks and women the right to vote. Sometimes when discussion doesn't work people must resort to civil disobedience. And that's what San Francisco is doing, and I support them.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Everything I proposed is consistent with some reading of the Constitution.
Yes. You proposed:
arresting doctors who perform abortions
arresting anti-war protestors on grounds that Bush had a whim that free speech shouldn't apply
a Texas town executing all Mexican-looking people in an effort to end immigration
Which Constitution have you been reading? And pointing out the hypocritical application of the laws in the US -- declaring equality while applying unequal laws -- is hardly as radical or, frankly, bizarre as your examples. At the worst, the California Constitution will need to be re-written to declare that everyone but homosexuals are equal in the eyes of the law. So long as this inconsistency is dealt with, I'll be happy.
quote:No, especially not over an issue as silly as the term we use to describe a couple's relationship.
This isn't over a term, this is over simple equality. This is about the time-honored tradition of relegating homosexuals to a sub-class in society based on popular bigotry. Shame on you for pretending this isn't a long-fought battle for civil rights instead of terminology.
quote:This already happened once this year. Don't you remember the judge who refused to take the 10 Commandments out of his courtroom after they were ruled illegal? Did you feel the judge had the right to do that?
Had the right? No. But he took a stance to fight for what he believed in, and if he weren't a judge, and if there were any justifiable reason to enforce the intermingling of church and state, I might even applaud. As it is, though, he's not pointing out any inconsistency in the legal system -- we don't, for example, marry Muslims and not Christians. He's just being an ornery ass who wants to mingle his brand of god with the government in an effort to project what he believes are moral values on the rest of society. He shares quite a few principles with the Taliban.
quote:This case should be treated just the same. The city should be fined severely to start out with, and should face even higher penalties if they insist on continuing with their illegal practice. Having a political position does not give you the right to ignore the law and instead enforce your own personal opinion.
Actually, Tres, if you bothered to read my post above or any of the links I provided, you'd note that I've already informed you that Newsom's actually applying an existing law even as it contradicts other existing laws. In other words, he's enforcing the equality of all Californian (or at least San Franciscan) citizens despite current laws in place to prevent exactly that.
Have you read anything on the issue yet?
quote:This situation is especially bad because the gay couples are likely going to be screwed over in the end, because they will think they are married when, in reality, they aren't. All the city is doing is lying to them about it's authority to wed them. But no court anywhere is going to hold up a marriage that is directly contrary to the law - not even if at some point in the future the law has to be changed. It's the equivalent of protesting the death penalty by telling convicts they have been freed, knowing that they will get killed nevertheless.
It's not as shaky a legal case as it might be, though I'll be the first to admit the odds are stacked against the equal rights movement. But just as the Massachusetts court determined that existing legal persecution of homosexuals is in direct contradiction to the declaration that all citizens are equal, I hope the California Supreme Court will decide that bigoted laws, especially ones inspired by religion, especially those put in place to relegate an entire group of people to a sub-class of society, contradict the inherent equality of all citizens that this country was founded on.
After all, there's plenty of precedent. Just look at Lincoln freeing the slaves despite popular disapproval of equal rights and existing laws in place to prevent black equality. Just look at the civil rights movement of the 1960's or women's suffrage. Maybe Newsom's grant of equality is temporary, but it's inevitable -- and its inevitability is now a little less delayed thanks to Newsom's courage. I'm really proud of the man.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I've read several articles on this. I'm fairly certain they're trying to be very clear about what they're offering. The couples are being told to consult a lawyer because the city doesn't know what kind of rights can be afforded to these newly wedded couples. The official papers were re-written with these couples in mind, but also with the understanding that what they're doing is taking a stand and making a historic gesture.
I have no clue how this will turn out. I was very touched by the 79 and 83 year old couple who got married after being together for almost 51 years. They were the first ones to get married, and there are photos of them around. Lovely ladies.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Actually, Tres, if you bothered to read my post above or any of the links I provided, you'd note that I've already informed you that Newsom's actually applying an existing law even as it contradicts other existing laws.
No, he's not just applying a law in the accepted manner. He's interpretting the California Constitution in whatever way he feels like, which happens to be contrary to what the state legal system says is the correct interpretation. Just like I can interpret the U.S. Constitution as applying to fetuses and arrest abortion-performing doctors, or interpret it as not applying to possible Mexican immigrants, or interpret the free-speech clause as not protecting anti-war protesters. Don't pretend like this mayor is doing anything more justified than these examples, just because YOU happen to agree with his interpretation on this one and not with these other possible interpretations. Either individual mayors get to interpret laws however they feel like it, without regard to what the courts, laws, and people say on the matter, or they don't.
But if you say they do, be prepared to face whatever crazy stuff your Mayor or Governor or President decides the constitution allows him to do to you.
Posted by Adeimantus (Member # 5219) on :
TRESO- its sad that you feel that allowing gay marriage is "crazy" as you indicate in your comparisons. You fail to understand that this 'interpretation' of the law is GIVING a right to a deserving group. It IS crazy to compare this to stripping away freedoms like speech. Why should gays not be allowed to marry? And if it is the whim of some politician's interpretation then I can assure you that this whim, however crazy you might feel it is, is the most correct interpretation I have ever heard. The mayor is not taking away freedoms as you alluded to, he is allowing gay marriage to take place. You speak of this as some sort of precedent for a fascist government. The government has no more right to call gay marriage illegal than they do in taking away rights to certain groups. It is completely reasonable and has been coming for some time now.
(This is all from a hetero-sexual supporter) I love our progress, however slow it may be!!
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Tresopax has the right perspective here. In the* civil rights movement local politicians openly defied court orders because their ideology opposed their enforcement. The fact that we both agree with Brown and not with the CA circuit courts does not provide a good yardstick for action when charged with representing the people and institutions of our republic.
Fact is, the legal system -- especially the tax code -- gives preferential treatment to different people for a variety of quasi-arbitrary reasons. In a perfect world any two people could file as a joint household, but in said world I could also deduct my rent payments (as I could were I accruing equity). For some odd reason** we consider child-raising such an advantageous activity that therein lie the largest deductions of all for an average family; it's not much of a leap to therefore afford a priviledged status to couples capable of adding children in the first place. Sheer bollocks, of course, but let's not pretend the notion is plucked from thin air.
*I think I'm justified calling it "the." It's pretty ridiculous that the government is in the business of managing relationships, but let's not pretend it's anywhere near the problems faced by blacks 50 years ago.
**It's much cheaper, macroeconomically, to decrease the birth rate and increase immigration. Say what you will about the average immigrant, but they arrive with far more skills and education than babies.
[ February 14, 2004, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:No, he's not just applying a law in the accepted manner. He's interpretting the California Constitution in whatever way he feels like, which happens to be contrary to what the state legal system says is the correct interpretation. Just like I can interpret the U.S. Constitution as applying to fetuses and arrest abortion-performing doctors, or interpret it as not applying to possible Mexican immigrants, or interpret the free-speech clause as not protecting anti-war protesters. Don't pretend like this mayor is doing anything more justified than these examples, just because YOU happen to agree with his interpretation on this one and not with these other possible interpretations. Either individual mayors get to interpret laws however they feel like it, without regard to what the courts, laws, and people say on the matter, or they don't.
But if you say they do, be prepared to face whatever crazy stuff your Mayor or Governor or President decides the constitution allows him to do to you.
Interpreting the claim that all citizens are equal and entitled to the same rights under the law, then giving all citizens equal rights under the law, isn't "crazy stuff" Newsom's shoving on San Francisco. Heh. Tres, you'd be less amusing if you'd bother addressing the entirety of what I say instead of selecting a statement, then reiterating exactly what that statement was responding to.
Yes, interpreting the declaration of equality, then providing equality in direct opposition to existing California laws, shows some major inconsistency with the laws. As I said above. This may result in the California Constitution being rewritten to specify that everyone but homosexuals are equal -- or the issue may be shoved under the rug by conservatives as it's been for the entire history of the state, and they can pretend that homosexuals, while entitled to equal rights, just aren't equal enough to merit true equality. But Newsom's getting this issue out in the open and challenging the contradictary and bigoted laws of California for all to see -- I can't express my admiration for him. If this is what a Green mayor is like, I may very well switch parties.
As for you, though, I'm rather confused. You seem intent on focusing on this issue as solely a mayor-overstepping-the-bounds-of-his-authority issue -- as a result I'm having flashbacks to the time when the Supreme Court ruled that persecuting homosexuals through sodomy laws is unConstitutional, and in response, OSC whined in War Watch that the Constitution never specified judicial review. OSC went back to Marbury vs. Madison to justify his anti-homosexual views, Tres, and I don't think any single episode before or since then has lowered my respect for the man as much as that single column did. Don't do the same. Have the spine to express why you're truly bothered by Newsom standing up for equal rights -- I know your stances from long experience with you, and I'm rather puzzled that your sole outrage over this issue is Newsom's challenge to Sacramento.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
You know, if I keep being told I'm a bigot, perhaps I will begin to believe it.
Maybe I should go out and try some bigoted activities like talking smack to some of my fellow Cracker Barrel employees and making long rants. Or I could try getting a letter-writing campaign started to ensure that gay marriage doesn't start in Kentucky. Or maybe I should just cut to the chase and borrow a friend's pickup. Strangely, these activities don't seem to appeal to me, but maybe if I tried them I'd find out what I'm missing. I am, after all, a bigot.
Strange that I didn't sign on with the White Cloak Squad when all my high-school peers were doing it. Perhaps it would've raised my social status a notch or two.
Ain't I evil? Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
You do understand, Lalo, that by the title of this thread, you could very well be insulting Our Hosts by calling them bigots.
Making a point is one thing - being intentionally inflamatory is another.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Ironically, I read this as I watch a film on Martin Luther King, Jr.
Lee, don't play the martyr please. Lay out your argument.
Lalo, *thwap*
Tres, *thwap*
Back into your corners, boys.
Can someone compare this civil disobedience to other instances of civil disobedience in the black rights movement?
I'm in class till 12:30, non overt research will be hard.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
If only we had a 'Hatrack quote of the week' that would hover over the beginning of the rest of the posts for a week. Personally, I think it would an awesome community building tool, but whatever.
In any case, I love this:
quote: It's much cheaper, macroeconomically, to decrease the birth rate and increase immigration. Say what you will about the average immigrant, but they arrive with far more skills and education than babies.
Witty, intelligent and funny, all at the same time!
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: by Tresopax
Or what would you say if Bush just decided to start arresting anti-war protesters because he personally felt free speech shouldn't apply?
This, my dear Tres, has already happened. And IS happening. Remember the post about the University that was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation? People arrested on trumped up charges like trespassing when they refused to be a half mile away from where the Prez was speaking because they were protesting? You're ok with that I take it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: No, he's not just applying a law in the accepted manner. He's interpretting the California Constitution in whatever way he feels like, which happens to be contrary to what the state legal system says is the correct interpretation.
Does the state legal system define marriage as one man/one woman? I'm not clear why these marriages are illegal or unconstitutional under existing conditions?
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: by Richard Berg It's pretty ridiculous that the government is in the business of managing relationships, but let's not pretend it's anywhere near the problems faced by blacks 50 years ago.
Here I differ with this statement. Gays are being locked up for loving each other. Just like Blacks were being locked up for sitting in White resteraunts. Gays are being killed for being Gay by bigots just like Blacks were killed before and during the Civil Rights movement because they were Black. So yes, they (Gays) CAN be compared to Blacks in that way.
EDIT: To clarify one statement and to correct a mistake in another.
[ February 14, 2004, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: BookWyrm ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
[montypython]Lalo, you are a silly person, and I'm not going to argue with you.[/montypython]
Here's what I don't understand. Gays are not a race. They're not an ethnic group. They're individuals from all parts of our society who share a common experience — the psychological phenomenon known as homosexuality. It's an ill-understood phenomenon, since in a few short years, our nation has gone from seeing it almost universally as a loathsome aberration, to seeing it as a passionately sympathetic, abused minority with highly-charged political ramifications.
At no point in that process has anyone been able to study and understand this phenomenon and its place in society from an unbiased, rational perspective. We went straight from almost universal prejudice against gays, to the point we're at today, when even suggesting something that isn't aligned with the gay political agenda gets you tarred and feathered as a bigot.
People like Lalo are so completely blinded to their own unquestioning acceptance of that agenda that they cannot listen even to the reasonable arguments of moderates like Tresopax, and instead paint all of their opponents with the same bigoted brush.
First of all, how in the world do you think that kind of bitter divisiveness could be good for the country? If you take the position of a child holding his fingers in his ears, screaming "You're a bigot, la la la!" do you think you're going to persuade anyone to accept your point of view?
But in truth, that doesn't seem to be your goal. You don't care if anyone agrees with you, or feels that the government and the laws represent their will. You are perfectly satisfied if the courts and rebellious leaders ram major social changes down our throats without a vote, and without a national mandate from the American people. You've completely abandoned the ideals of a democracy, and instead applaud dictatorial practices that steal any political influence from people that you arbitrarily disagree with. You're so in love with yourself and your Luke-Skywalker righteous-rebel self-image that you fail to see that a more accurate analogy to your political behavior is a blond German wearing a swastika armband, throwing a rock at a Jewish store window. Lily-white racists don't have a monopoly on oppression and prejudice, Lalo. It's sad that you're so blinded by your passion that you can't see the moral trap that you're blundering into.
You may or may not be on the right side in this argument. But this is the wrong way to win it, and it doesn't make your side look any better.
But second of all, this IS a major social change, and it would do us all some good to stop and think for a minute before we go off half-cocked. We've made a lot of major social changes in the past century, with only the best of intentions, and not all of them have gone as well as we'd hoped. We created the easy, no-fault divorce. We decided that premarital promiscuity should be the norm, rather than the exception. And look at what we have now — most American children grow up in broken homes, or homes that have always lacked a father. Man-hating misanthropes might say this is a good thing, but I think most of us know better.
We legalized abortion, thinking of it as a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men. But as time goes on, more and more young people are discovering that what looks like an easy way out of a tough and embarrassing pregnancy can lead to decades of regret that none of the abortion advocates warned them about. And this slippery slope has plunged us into a moral pit where now claiming support for "women's rights" obligates an individual to advocate even the most reprehensible forms of late-term abortion.
What we're really learning is how shortsighted we are as a people. When we make these changes, we may get what we want in the moment. Suzy gets to have her abortion so her parents don't find out she's pregnant, Bob finally gets to bang the girl next door without getting her a ring, Dick and Jane get to have a divorce and screw around without society holding them responsible for the welfare of their children. Everybody's happy, right?
But no one bothers to notice Suzy's years of regret, Bob's girlfriend's shame and heartbreak, or the fact that Dick and Jane's children grow up doubting their parents' love and lacking their influence and support during their critical formative years. We're too busy moving right on to the next big, exciting, romantic social movement. We're like a runaway train, plowing from one experiment to the next without ever checking our results. Am I the only one who wonders what will happen when our choices catch up to us, and we hit the end of the track?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But second of all, this IS a major social change, and it would do us all some good to stop and think for a minute before we go off half-cocked. We've made a lot of major social changes in the past century, with only the best of intentions, and not all of them have gone as well as we'd hoped. We created the easy, no-fault divorce. We decided that premarital promiscuity should be the norm, rather than the exception. And look at what we have now — most American children grow up in broken homes, or homes that have always lacked a father. Man-hating misanthropes might say this is a good thing, but I think most of us know better.
Your post isn't much better in the jingoistic rhetoric department. 'Man-hating misanthropes'.
In any case, it would be great if someone could address my point.(edit: from my previous post)
[ February 14, 2004, 12:30 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
But you also forget the wife in a marriage who looks out with loveless eyes onto her family and lives out her decades in misery and loneliness. Her children won't grow up any better for her dishonesty to herself and her emptiness.
And the woman who remembers her high-school sweetheart with a smile, remembers their love for each other. You taint her memories by calling her a slut, a sinner, a woman destined to hell.
Or how about the teenage girl who kills herself when she discovers she's pregnant, or uses a coathanger to try and force her body to abort the unwanted child? Oh, that would never happen in your perfect society of Moral Souls.
Spare me the colorful displays of people's lives under this "misguided society." In any society, there will be abuses and misery and violence. Unlike you, I believe in giving people options, and allowing them to grow as individuals and as society. If you raise a child by hiding every sharp utensil and every piece of fire until they're 18, your child is not better off for it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Ok, Lalo, you get your wish. I'm not sure how I feel about gays getting married because I am not convinced that homosexuality is a natural and alternate lifestyle. Research on males has been inconclusive, but female homosexuality and bisexuality has been shown to be influenced by fads. I have personally seen this.
Conservative Christians still tend to suspect homosexuality is a perversion. Just as I am uncomfortable with legal pedophilia, I am uncomfortable with putting the government and societal stamp of approval on this behavior.
Should gays be free to marry? I don't know. On the one hand, it seems to be silly to argue for the sanctity of a government contract. There's certainly nothing offensive about two people who want access to each other's health insurance and tax benefits. But if granting them those rights means I have to say the behavior is normal, I'm just not sure I can do it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Storm:
quote:California law defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman, The Associated Press reported.
From:http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/West/02/13/samesex.marriage/index.html
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
(In regards to Geoff) The problem with all that was that you are trying to make a point about social change, without addressing homosexuality in any way.
Unlike like some of the things you mentioned, the only justification for not allowing gays to marry falls directly on religious morality. There just isn't any secular reasons at all. I think from the countless threads here dealing with homosexuality that we can finally all agree with that. (The first few pages of every thread always give vague and ridiculous reasons stemming from fear of some imaginary hurt to children, but then admit that there isn't any around page 3 )
[ February 14, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks. I apologize for missing that in your links.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Conservative Christians still tend to suspect homosexuality is a perversion. Just as I am uncomfortable with legal pedophilia, I am uncomfortable with putting the government and societal stamp of approval on this behavior.
*backs out of thread before saying something which might get him banned*
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
good answer, Storm. "Geoff, your post didn't answer my question, so let's ignore it." well, Geoff, that's what you get for trying to write a reasoned, thoughtful moderate post.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Storm: "Your post isn't much better in the jingoistic rhetoric department. 'Man-hating misanthropes'."
Heh heh. I debated about whether to leave that phrase in after I wrote it
Sun: "But you also forget the wife in a marriage who looks out with loveless eyes onto her family and lives out her decades in misery and loneliness. Her children won't grow up any better for her dishonesty to herself and her emptiness."
Um, yes, I think that her children WILL grow up a lot better if she cares enough about them to stick around and raise them, rather than running off to pursue some fleeting fancy. It's called growing up and taking responsibility for your life and your choices. We have a serious problem when we expect no better of parents than to act like children themselves.
"And the woman who remembers her high-school sweetheart with a smile, remembers their love for each other. You taint her memories by calling her a slut, a sinner, a woman destined to hell."
[goes back over his post] Wait, who did I call a slut and a sinner?
"Or how about the teenage girl who kills herself when she discovers she's pregnant, or uses a coathanger to try and force her body to abort the unwanted child? Oh, that would never happen in your perfect society of Moral Souls."
Hold on. When did I ever say that people never make self-destructive choices? Are you suggesting that we should make our laws based on the fear that if we don't cater to people's desire for an easy way out of every bad situation, they will run off and kill themselves, and it will be our fault? That is a bit of a stretch. I think it's possible for people to make bad choices, but sometimes the easy way out is an even worse choice. We have to stop the spiral somewhere.
"In any society, there will be abuses and misery and violence. Unlike you, I believe in giving people options, and allowing them to grow as individuals and as society. If you raise a child by hiding every sharp utensil and every piece of fire until they're 18, your child is not better off for it."
It's just as destructive to raise a child by cleaning up all of his messes for him and never expecting him to learn responsibility or suffer the consequences of his own behavior. Eventually, no matter how many choices and ways out we offer people, someone will eventually dig themselves into a hole they can't get out of without some pain or self-correction. I'd rather set that boundary sooner than later. I would rather have a child of mine deal with social consequences for a simple mistake like premarital sex or an unwise marriage and have a chance to learn from it, than to let them continue on down that same road ignorantly, without any consequences at all, until they get into more serious hardship that no one can bail them out of.
Xavier: "Unlike like some of the things you mentioned, the only justification for not allowing gays to marry falls directly on religious morality."
What I'm saying is, most of us haven't stopped to study and think about the gay marriage question to determine whether or not there are ramifications beyond religious morality. Most of us just say it's a religious question, and say yes or no, depending on our religious leanings. I think we can be much smarter than that.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:Here's what I don't understand. Gays are not a race. They're not an ethnic group. They're individuals from all parts of our society who share a common experience — the psychological phenomenon known as homosexuality. It's an ill-understood phenomenon, since in a few short years, our nation has gone from seeing it almost universally as a loathsome aberration, to seeing it as a passionately sympathetic, abused minority with highly-charged political ramifications.
That would be because gays have been explicitly denied rights afforded other people who are exactly like they are, with only one difference: their sexual preference. The majority of people think that those who have "alternative" weddings, with people who look like extras for the Jim Rose Circus, are unpalatable or not normal, but they are afforded legal marriage rights as long as it's a male and female getting married. Goth couples, gansta couples, thrill seeker couples, and all other sorts of not normal couples are allowed to marry, except homosexual couples. So, in essence, this is a matter of a specific group having specific restrictions being placed upon them for the sole reason of belonging to that group. It is a civil rights issue, because a group is being singled out and denied rights afforded the rest of the citizens. It doesn't have to be an ethnic background or religious affiliation to count as outright bigotry. All it takes is singling out a group based on certain criteria and actively denying them rights. Since this happens today, it's right to call it bigotry.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:t's just as destructive to raise a child by cleaning up all of his messes for him and never expecting him to learn responsibility or suffer the consequences of his own behavior
I certainly don't feel that allowing these things to be legal means cleaning up their messes. There are ramifactions for every action.
And unfortunately, we will have to agree to disagree about "who is better off" in various situations.
Your "wait guys, we need to think this out" just doesn't come across as an empathetic world-caring kind of answer. Many of us equate gay marriage issues to issues people have over inter-racial relationships. I think it's absurd to state that a lesbian couple who have been together for 51 years cannot be legally married to each other in this country because we're not sure what will happen to society if they do. Maybe in your head, the people getting married are AIDS-riddled 20-something men who have been hopping from partner to partner and decided this would be the best way to get life insurance. But in my head, I think about those friends who are in relationships every bit as real as heterosexual relationships, who go through pain, anger, love, and joy just as well as you do.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: What I'm saying is, most of us haven't stopped to study and think about the gay marriage question to determine whether or not there are ramifications beyond religious morality. Most of us just say it's a religious question, and say yes or no, depending on our religious leanings. I think we can be much smarter than that.
It's pretty clear to me, then, that at some point we have to poop or get off the pot and allow gay marriage *somewhere* in the US in order to see what its effects are.
I recognize what you are saying. It just seems to beg the question of the question of gay marriage. I don't see that anyone who is against whole hog gay marriage, but for 'let's see what happens and go from there' gay marriage, is really arguing against gay marriage in principle. It seems to me that this argument lends itself to the pro-gay marriage camp, except that you're arguing for gay marriage to be adopted on a limited basis.
However (and I am not accusing you or anyone else on this thread of it), people who normally make this argument, from what I've observed, are usually arguing against gay marriage in general. They say 'state's rights' because they know damn well that support isn't widespread enough (not positive on this) in any state to get it passed. As a matter of fact, a huge number of states have made any kind of legal recognition hugely difficult by defining marriage as one man one woman through amendments of their state constitution. So, by saying state's rights, people can avoid actually coming out against gay marriage, but not actually have to address whether gay marriage is good or bad, where they would have to admit that they (usually)don't have any evidence that gay marriage would be bad for anyone.
As a social anarchist/libertarian/goofball, I have to admit that I find a problem with having to prove that what you're doing is for the 'good' of society before you are allowed to do it. It seems to fly in the face of at least a couple American ideals--that the Creator has endowed us all with the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Happiness as defined by you and not someone else. Innocence until proven guilty. It also ignores the fact that there are lots of things which don't do a darn thing for society but are individually very satisfying.
In any case, to get back on topic, I think that people who are saying that they want to see gay marriage instituted in a limited fashion should say whether they provisionally support gay marriage or not, as it seems that they are.
[ February 14, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Storm, I would like to point out that my question on state's rights was just that: a question about state's rights. I'd have asked the same question if Massachusettes wanted to legalize rutabega adoptions. If the other states said you couldn't adopt a rutebega, whose law wins? I was curious.
In this case, my question is not, "Is homosexuality good for society?" My question is, "Is homosexuality good for homosexuals?" From watching my gay friends abuse drugs and act generally unhappy with themselves, I'm inclined to believe it is not. Maybe there are gays content with themselves and their life choices out there somewhere, but I don't know any. And I think that says something important.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Or my straight friends who abuse drugs and are generally unhappy with themselves...does this mean that heterosexuality is bad for us?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
AR,
I wasn't accusing anyone in this thread who was speaking of state's rights to be one way or the other. I recognize that there is a definite constitutional principle involved. However, that constitutional principle ignores the actual question of whether or not gay marriage should be adopted.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Mac, sure I know plenty of straight people who are unhappy with themselves. But I know plenty who are content with themselves, too. The point is I don't know a single gay person who is content with themself and doesn't act out some form of self-destructive behavior.
[ February 14, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: AvidReader ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Mmmmmmm...can of worms...*drool*
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Maybe, just maybe AvidReader, you don't live in an area where gays are accepted as much as they should be. I'd think that being oppressed ever since I was 14 would give me cause to go a little off kilter.
But really. I have at least half a dozen non-heterosexual good friends. They're all about as well-adjusted as anyone else. The only friend or friend-of-friends people I know who 'do drugs and stuff' are straight. Your sample pool is not a good enough sample pool.
Here's a random aside: Why oh why are almost all homosexuality threads on hatrack incredibly man-oriented? I guess there are no openly lesbian hatrackers, but really. It seems that the lesbian focus is really quite low. And I wonder if people find lesbians "less offensive" because of physical sexual activity, or a gender bias in general. Or maybe they're just as offensive.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This, my dear Tres, has already happened. And IS happening. Remember the post about the University that was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation? People arrested on trumped up charges like trespassing when they refused to be a half mile away from where the Prez was speaking because they were protesting? You're ok with that I take it.
Lalo is okay with it, you mean. He's the one saying government executives can interpret laws however they feel.
I'm the one saying we live in a country where the law (as interpreted by the courts) rules, rather than the opinion of individual mayors or governors or presidents on what that law should mean.
quote:Interpreting the claim that all citizens are equal and entitled to the same rights under the law, then giving all citizens equal rights under the law, isn't "crazy stuff" Newsom's shoving on San Francisco. Heh. Tres, you'd be less amusing if you'd bother addressing the entirety of what I say instead of selecting a statement, then reiterating exactly what that statement was responding to.
Lalo, your entire argument is based on the premise that this mayor can overrule the people and the courts in interpreting the law (at least so long as it is in a way you, personally, feel is right). Once that premise is eliminated, there's really nothing else that needs to be addressed.
quote:Have the spine to express why you're truly bothered by Newsom standing up for equal rights -- I know your stances from long experience with you, and I'm rather puzzled that your sole outrage over this issue is Newsom's challenge to Sacramento.
What is this secret other motive you think I have? I've already said in other threads that I felt it's fine for marriage to be extended to same-sex couples.
Isn't preserving the rule of law and preventing rogue leaders from doing whatever they want enough reason to oppose this action? Haven't you heard me complaining about Bush misconstruing the law to erode civil liberties? Haven't you heard me complain about how the U.S. deliberately twisted international law to justify our war on Iraq? How could I possibly complain about those things and accept something like this, which is far more blatant?
Perhaps you believe it's okay for liberals to do these things and not for conservatives, because you think liberals are right. Perhaps you think it's okay to use any method, even if it's illegal, irrational, or just plain undemocratic, to advocate your own personal ideological values over everyone else's. I don't, however. Why would it be so hard to believe I think this is reason enough to come down in strong opposition to this act?
[ February 14, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
AR, where do you live?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
AR: Sucks for those friends of yours. However, personal experience cannot usually be extrapolated to a general population without significant research on the matter.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Florida, originally from Citrus County, the backwards bell curve of the US. But of course, almost no one in Florida is originally from Florida. I've been exposed to northerners, southerners, midwesterners, pretty much everything white. Last census, I believe we had a 3% minority population in the entire county. So no, my sample is probably not a perfect one. However, I still feel it should be considered.
Since I am not gay, I can not speak authoritatively on homosexuality. However, since gays are biased on the subject, neither can they. All we can do is observe and draw our own conclusions. Maybe it's normal and healthy, maybe it's not. I haven't seen any evidence that convinces me either way. So how willing are we to declare it a healthy, alternate lifestyle? I for one prefer to reserve judgement and encourage caution.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
AR,
So, before someone in this country is allowed to do something, they have to prove that what they are doing is healthy?
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
AvidReader, by your line of thinking, any group you observe as not being happy should not be allowed to have the same rights as those who you observe as being happy. Do you realize how obviously undemocratic and fascist this kind of thinking is? You may as well be saying that anyone you don't like shouldn't be allowed to have the rights people you do like have. This is why it's being called bigotry, and why, if you truly believe what you said, that I have no fear of calling you a bigot.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You might do a little search, particularly for the thread a while back where we discussed a study done of studies of children raised by homosexual people, which found that every single study (meeting certain broad criteria that encompass by far most sociological studies) so far done could find no negative effects on the children. I rather suspect a search on "homosexuality" would turn it up .
Also, I would suspect that most people you've encountered would have little reason to share their sexual preferences with you, so its quite possible you've met well adjusted homosexual people and just didn't know it. After all, do you tell people you casually encounter that you're straight?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Argent, I'm not sure I agree with you that marriage is a right. It's too important to pair with a word implying everyone deserves it regardless of their worthiness. Of course, I don't want the government deciding who is worthy either. Makes for a bit of a conundrum.
I would also disagree that I am fascist or that fence sitting qualifies me as a bigot. But then, I'm biased on the subject.
Storm, while we shouldn't have to prove that what we are doing is healthy, is it moral of us as a society to encourage behavior that may be unhealthy? I'd like to be a little more sure before I endorse it.
Fugu, good point. Again, something to consider. All I can base my opinion on are the ones I know and have had a chance to observe.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
AR, outside of offending some people's sensibilities, no one has any proof that gay marriage is bad for anyone. So, the idea that society would be encouraging 'bad behavior' is questionable.
But let's engage in hypotheticals. Give me some hypothetical cause and effect. If the principle that is followed is that adults of any sex can be married, what ill effects do you see following from that?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Storm, it's not the marriage part I'm not sure about. It's the nature of homosexuality in general. As a conservative Christian, I'm not sure I agree it's something people ought to be doing. This is where the argumant breaks down. Either God said don't do it for a reason, or we don't need to listen to that part of the Bible. Coming to the subject from such different viewpoints, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
On Civil Disobedience and Radical Change
Civil disobedience: “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the same of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government’s authority.” (Bleiker, 2002).
Using Rawls’s definition, the mayor of San Francisco acted within the bounds of civil disobedience. His action of issuing marriage licenses to gay couples was public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to California state law. This action was done with the intention of bringing about change in said law in order to force the policies of California to match the writing of its constitution. (Bleiker, 2002). California has a precedent of court cases involving the unconstitutionality of state laws. One case is 1948’s Perez vs. Lippold where the state’s law banning interracial marriage was ended. (Wolfson, 2003). In the findings of the case, the state pronounced that the essence of the right to marry is the freedom to join in marriage to the person of one’s choice. (Wolfson, 2003). The battle in court over this San Francisco mayor’s action will very likely use this legal case as precedent for unconstitutional restriction on a person’s right to marry whom they choose.
Conscientious objection is not relegated to just religious matters while not taking into account secular objections, certainly in a state that is separated from church (Epstein, 2002). In taking apart this definition of civil disobedience, conscientious is a word that has differing connotations. Conscience, in secular terms, is a type of morality shared by those in a society, such as fellow citizens, friends, political party members, etc. (Epstein, 2002). As we have come to agreement in previous threads, religious objection to the issue of legalizing civil marriage for gay couples has no place in state decisions, aside from those voters who hold those views. However, those who object on religious grounds are also conscientious objectors—but remain in a small minority among the entire group of objectors. (Epstein, 2002). As a citizen of the United States, a country that is a member of the United Nations, we are granted the freedom of conscience—the ability to hold opinions of the moral kind. (Epstein, 2002). In fact: “The primary aim of the United Nations in the sphere of human rights is the achievement by each individual of the maximum freedom and dignity. For the realization of this objective, the laws of every country should grant each individual, irrespective of race, language, religion or political belief, freedom of expression, of information, of conscience and of religion.” (Epstein, 2002). Therefore, in the spirit and definition of civil disobedience, this San Francisco mayor has acted in the realm of his freedom of conscience in publicly decrying a state law he has found to be in conflict with a state constitution, and of previous state legal findings.
As a province, Ontario, Canada has legalized civil marriage for same-sex couples (Wolfson, 2003). In this ruling, the Ontario high court stated that “the exclusion of same-sex couples from the important legal institution of civil marriage infringes upon human dignity, harms real families, and violates constitutional guarantees of equality and fairness.” (Wolfson, 2003). For the chicken littles who object to the legalization of civil marriages to same-sex couples, other radical changes have occurred in the past years that have had the same chicken little reactions yet brought nothing of the “sky is falling” effect: 1) Uncontested divorce, 2) the end of restrictions on interracial marriage, 3) establishment of women’s equality and end to married women’s loss of legal identity, property, and rights 4) the civil rights acts of the sixties. (Wolfson, 2003). While each change has brought about its positive and negative effects, none has brought society crashing down.
Social Ramifications of Same-Sex Marriage
“If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”-- Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972.
Here is another fight entirely. Other opponents of gay marriage rights decry the notion of children being brought up in that type of family unit. These objectors, religious and secular, bring up the statistics of those children brought up in homes of divorce, children being born out of wedlock, and the effects of those situations on those children. (Gomes, 2003). If gay parents could be legally married, the number of children born in wedlock and with both parents would rise.
This is why: 22 percent of gay/bisexual couples are raising children as compared to 23 percent of married/heterosexual couples. Nearly the same amount of children have married, heterosexual parents as do the children who have partners are parents. (Gomes, 2003). Those 22 percent of children of these same-sex couples are in families where they are born “out of wedlock” another social depravity used as a mark for an immoral society. (Gomes, 2003). Were there legal civil marriages for same-sex couples, those 22 percent of children would be from unbroken homes.
In terms of the effects on children who have same-sex parents, they are indistinguishable from their peers who have heterosexual parents. Another finding was that divorce has a more damaging effect on children than does having gay parents. (Gomes, 2003). To determine if children of same-sex parents had a higher incidence of being homosexual, Carlos Ball and Janice Farrell Pea surveyed a series of studies from 1978 to 1996 and found that “the percentage of children of gays and lesbians who were identified as gay or lesbian ranged from zero to nine.” (Gomes, 2003). Another study done by Carole Jenny determined that 94 percent of molested girls and 86 percent of molested boys were abused by men. Of those, 74 percent were abused by an adult male in a heterosexual relationship with the mother. However, these statistics are not taken into account in custody battles where a father is seeking the physical custody of the child. (Gomes, 2003).
References
Bleiker, R. (2002). Rawls and the limits of nonviolent civil disobedience. Social Alternatives, 21(2), 37-41.
Epstein, A.D. (2002). The freedom of conscience and sociological perspectives on dilemmas of collective secular disobedience: the case of Israel. Journal of Human Rights, 1(3), 305-321.
Gomes, C. (2003). Partners as parents: challenges faced by gays denied marriage. Humanist, 63(6), 14-20.
Wolfson, E. (2003). Case against marriage equality implodes. Gay & Lesbian Review Worldwide, 10(6), 25-28.
[ February 14, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Your bias on the subject is what makes what you say bigoted, AvidReader. Your lack of information on whether the marriage rights would be bad as a basis for your opinion makes your prejudgement illogical, and based entirely on your personal opinion on the matter. I'm not calling you a Hitler or a Klu Klux Klan member, but I am calling your blatant prejudice bigotry. Whether marriage is a right or not isn't the case, it's the criteria on whether marriage is allowed or not is based upon. Whether it's a right or not, the criteria to decide whether it's allowed is bigoted.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Argent, again that assumes that homosexuality is normal. I am not convinced that it is. Therefore I will not come down off the fence either for or against gay marriage.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I haven't read any studies about the children of homosexual parents, but I did got to school for years as a kid near San Francisco, and may of my friends had a homosexual parent. The majority, actaully. I had only one friend who, like me, lived with both biological parents who were still married.
I remember that my friends had a lot of emotional issues, often because they were born before one or both parents became gay/came out, but then "lost" one of their parents. My friends who had two moms really, really, missed their dads, but felt obligated to hate them, or at least consider them totally unneeded.
I never did meet a child of gay parents who felt differently. I'm sure there are some, but I can see how difficult it would be, to feel totally adjusted when you're missing a real role model of the other gender.
I wonder how "sexual abuse" is defined in that study metioned above. My friends were exposed to a LOT of really raw stuff that, I guess, seemed normal to their gay parents.
It's not much of a post, but that's my RL experience.
[ February 14, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Was that a pre-existing essay Mack or did you write that just now? If that was written for this thread I would say it is the best post I've witnessed during my 5 years here, but somehow I think not .
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I wrote it in the past hour. This issue really bugs the crap out of me. I'm tired of hearing the "kids of same-sex parents will experience more sexual abuse" despite the numerous studies that prove otherwise.
And if people want to use anecdotal evidence as a basis for this finding, I have plenty that would indicate that children of heterosexual parents experience more sexual abuse.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I agree. That was a well written essay.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Oh, I agree, I hate it when people use anecdotal evidence.
(I could make a comparison to people saying "But I know this gay couple and their love is pure, they should be allowed to marry!" but I think I'm too chicken)
My major point, and I wasn't clear enough, was that I would like to know 1. Who's doing the study, and 2. What are the defined terms? i.e., what is "sexual abuse"?
I've passed by a lot of studies done on monogamy in gay relationships, and the majority of those studies are done by gay people.
After all, if I posted a "study" done by Mormons that says "Mormon children are shown to be happier and better adjusted than non Mormon children" or whatever, wouldn't you question it? Or "Those raised by members of the KKK show no ill effects of bigotry"?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Mack,
Thanks for the well-researched essay. I want to let you know that your fellow hatrackers appreciate reasoned, researched arguments.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Jenny, C. & Roesler, T.A. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94(1), 41-45.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
If the mayor of San Fransisco wants to break the law on his own time to bring about some change in policy, that's fine. But when he starts using the authority the public has entrusted in him to do so, it becomes abuse of power. He's not only being disobedient himself, but forcing his whole city to be disobedient.
Similarly, if Bush were to start arresting doctors who perform abortions, it would not merely be civil disobedience, even if it was just to get abortion banned. It would be abuse of power, because the President can't use his powers to break the law, regardless of what noble goals he has.
[ February 14, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Here's what I don't understand. Gays are not a race. They're not an ethnic group. They're individuals from all parts of our society who share a common experience — the psychological phenomenon known as homosexuality. It's an ill-understood phenomenon, since in a few short years, our nation has gone from seeing it almost universally as a loathsome aberration, to seeing it as a passionately sympathetic, abused minority with highly-charged political ramifications.
The psychological phenomenon? You're making some immense leaps of faith here, Geoff, and ignoring the gorilla in your living room that's rather insistently pointing out that whether or not homosexuals are an ethnic group -- which, presumably, should not be persecuted? -- they're still harassed and abused and murdered across the country for their shared trait of homosexuality. They're persecuted by the same bigotry that persecuted blacks, that kept women inferior to men all these years -- regardless of whether or not women are all of a single homogenous ethnic group, until suffrage, the US legal system considered them inferior. And eventually granted them equality under the law despite widespread criticism and popular support for the existing, bigoted system.
What I find remarkable about this paragraph, Geoff, is that you seem to be implying that it's okay to keep homosexuals as a sub-class of society because they're not an ethnic group -- if they were, though, of course it would be wrong to deny them equality.
quote:At no point in that process has anyone been able to study and understand this phenomenon and its place in society from an unbiased, rational perspective. We went straight from almost universal prejudice against gays, to the point we're at today, when even suggesting something that isn't aligned with the gay political agenda gets you tarred and feathered as a bigot.
Heh. Yes, Geoff, there's a gay agenda. They're trying to rule the country! Corrupt our children! Clog up our toilets!
C'mon, dude, I usually have respect for you. Earn it as you usually do. There is no "gay political agenda," except for the drive to get equal rights -- they're not seeking preferential treatment. If any group's seeking preferential treatment, it's the side that wants to prevent other monogamous couples from equality. Guess which side that is, Geoff?
quote:People like Lalo are so completely blinded to their own unquestioning acceptance of that agenda that they cannot listen even to the reasonable arguments of moderates like Tresopax, and instead paint all of their opponents with the same bigoted brush.
Don't be a jackass, Geoff. Tres has indeed offered an argument -- he claims that Newsom's going against the Californian law, and therefore these marriages are invalid. No kidding. I've responded that Newsom does have a legal case -- the California Constitution guarantees equal treatment of all citizens, and existing laws contradict that declaration. Not once have I called Tres a bigot, though I've questioned his fervent criticism of Newsom's actions -- somehow, in a thread about homosexuality, I'd expect Tres to address homosexuality itself. Instead, he's grown a sudden fury over a city granting equality to all its citizens, and developed a sudden uninterest in homosexuality itself. I've asked why the sudden change in focus, and have yet to receive an answer.
Thank god Newsom's forcing the issue -- now the California Constitution may need re-writing to state that everyone but homosexuals are equal. Not that I expect anti-homosexuals to be that honest about their political positions, but at least they won't be able to sweep homosexuals under the rug and pretend there's no discrepancy in the laws.
quote:First of all, how in the world do you think that kind of bitter divisiveness could be good for the country? If you take the position of a child holding his fingers in his ears, screaming "You're a bigot, la la la!" do you think you're going to persuade anyone to accept your point of view?
This "bitter divisiveness" characterized the Civil War. This "bitter divisiveness" was again brought up in the women's suffrage movement and the 1960's civil rights movement. I'd say it's damn good for the country to recognize existing bigotries and try to heal them -- don't you?
As for your attempt to paint a straw man, Geoff, I really do expect better from you. Are you so incapable of addressing why homosexuals don't deserve equal rights that you resort to false ad hominem attacks? It's pathetic, guy.
quote:But in truth, that doesn't seem to be your goal. You don't care if anyone agrees with you, or feels that the government and the laws represent their will. You are perfectly satisfied if the courts and rebellious leaders ram major social changes down our throats without a vote, and without a national mandate from the American people. You've completely abandoned the ideals of a democracy, and instead applaud dictatorial practices that steal any political influence from people that you arbitrarily disagree with. You're so in love with yourself and your Luke-Skywalker righteous-rebel self-image that you fail to see that a more accurate analogy to your political behavior is a blond German wearing a swastika armband, throwing a rock at a Jewish store window. Lily-white racists don't have a monopoly on oppression and prejudice, Lalo. It's sad that you're so blinded by your passion that you can't see the moral trap that you're blundering into.
Heh. Now you're trying to paint the civil rights movement as the rebirth of neo-Nazism?
True, if laws were passed denying any particular group of people equal rights, I'd be up in arms over it. If laws were passed mandating rocks through Jewish store windows, I'd be out demonstrating right now. But all that's happening here is the gift of equality to citizens -- exactly what's in accordance with the national and Californian Constitutions. Newsom's not ramming new laws down Californian throats -- Newsom's simply acting as the Constitution mandates he should.
But while you're busy trying to convince yourself that I'm blind or overly passionate or whatever it takes for you to convince yourself that I'm wrong, why not take a look at yourself? You're so desperate to keep this issue away from equality that you're resorting to argument over whether Newsom has the legal right to grant equality -- not whether or not that equality's deserved or not. Are you so incapable of providing reasonable discourse over why homosexuals should be denied equal rights?
quote:You may or may not be on the right side in this argument. But this is the wrong way to win it, and it doesn't make your side look any better.
But second of all, this IS a major social change, and it would do us all some good to stop and think for a minute before we go off half-cocked. We've made a lot of major social changes in the past century, with only the best of intentions, and not all of them have gone as well as we'd hoped. We created the easy, no-fault divorce. We decided that premarital promiscuity should be the norm, rather than the exception. And look at what we have now — most American children grow up in broken homes, or homes that have always lacked a father. Man-hating misanthropes might say this is a good thing, but I think most of us know better.
I had no idea I was a man-hating misanthrope, Geoff. Yet, since I believe pre-marital sex can actually contribute to the healthiness of a marriage, I must be doubly the misanthrope. Not that your stance on this issue doesn't directly support marriage for homosexual couples.
While I love how you're now trying to draw comparisons between divorce and marriage -- wouldn't the two be rather ridiculous to try and analogize, Geoff? -- I'm willing to address your divorce issue, too. You're not the only one that hates the idea that kids grow up in broken homes. I fully agree. And yet, if the alternative's growing up in a united, but abusive home, I fully support the right of women and men to seperate from their abusive or adulterous or neglectful spouses. And in the end, I think it's damn healthier for the kids to grow up understanding their parents divorced because the wife wouldn't put up with abuse, because the husband wouldn't put up with adultery, than growing up in a home where such things are accepted.
Don't you?
quote:We legalized abortion, thinking of it as a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men.
We did? That's news to me -- I had no idea abortion was instituted for purposes of removing responsibility and establishing equality. Can you provide any evidence over that, or is abortion just a favorite bugaboo that you wanted to complain about?
quote:But as time goes on, more and more young people are discovering that what looks like an easy way out of a tough and embarrassing pregnancy can lead to decades of regret that none of the abortion advocates warned them about. And this slippery slope has plunged us into a moral pit where now claiming support for "women's rights" obligates an individual to advocate even the most reprehensible forms of late-term abortion.
Moral pit? I'm fairly pro-life -- I favor the right to abortion in the first trimester, only special cases in the second, and none in the third -- but I can see plenty of reasons to not support late-term abortions without contradicting women's rights. Are you so incapable of arguing the same over homosexuality? Why homosexuals shouldn't be equal without coming off as a bigot? If you can't, it's fairly telling of the substance of your arguments.
quote:What we're really learning is how shortsighted we are as a people. When we make these changes, we may get what we want in the moment. Suzy gets to have her abortion so her parents don't find out she's pregnant, Bob finally gets to bang the girl next door without getting her a ring, Dick and Jane get to have a divorce and screw around without society holding them responsible for the welfare of their children. Everybody's happy, right?
But no one bothers to notice Suzy's years of regret, Bob's girlfriend's shame and heartbreak, or the fact that Dick and Jane's children grow up doubting their parents' love and lacking their influence and support during their critical formative years. We're too busy moving right on to the next big, exciting, romantic social movement. We're like a runaway train, plowing from one experiment to the next without ever checking our results. Am I the only one who wonders what will happen when our choices catch up to us, and we hit the end of the track?
Heh!
What I love about all these analogies, Geoff, is that you're trying to "prove" with them that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry.
Do you not see the irony?
But do tell, Geoff. Exactly what horrible consequences do you think will happen if we permit loving, monogamous couples the right to marriage that's already afforded to most loving, monogamous couples? And why did you think you would show why homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry with analogies that show the dangers of abortion (which homosexuals don't need), the merits of marriage (which homosexuals long to be able to participate in), and divorce (which 60% of all heterosexual marriages end in)?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And damn. Go Mack go.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:If the mayor of San Fransisco wants to break the law on his own time to bring about some change in policy, that's fine. But when he starts using the authority the public has entrusted in him to do so, it becomes abuse of power. He's not only being disobedient himself, but forcing his whole city to be disobedient.
He isn't forcing anyone to get married. He isn't forcing the citizenry of San Francisco to break the law. There is no coercion on his part which is part of abusing power. He is inviting people to participate in what IS given to them in the constitution, despite the unconstitutional law. He's taking advantage of a loophole, the same loophole that Massachusetts is debating right now.
quote:Similarly, if Bush were to start arresting doctors who perform abortions, it would not merely be civil disobedience, even if it was just to get abortion banned. It would be abuse of power, because the President can't use his powers to break the law, regardless of what noble goals he has.
See, that action is entirely different that the mayor's. Bush going and ferreting out doctors who perform abortions and arresting them is a negative action. Meaning, he's going out and attempting to eradicate something he finds morally corrupt by imprisoning all the offenders.
The mayor does no such thing. He extended this right, without coercion, to those same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license. He doesn't go and arrest every justice of the peace who won't perform a sex-sex marriage ceremony.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:Argent, again that assumes that homosexuality is normal. I am not convinced that it is. Therefore I will not come down off the fence either for or against gay marriage.
So, tongue piercing is normal? Full body tattooing is normal? People who want to get married while skydiving or BASE jumping is normal? People who want to sing their vows to each other is normal? Dressing up in fictional costumes or not at all is normal? I ask this because all of those people are allowed to marry. So, if you're saying that being gay, thus not being normal, is the reason they aren't allowed to marry then: 1. you are ignoring the many socially abnormal marriage practices that exist, or 2. you are picking out homosexuality as not allowed because it's an easier target to disallow. Either way, you're being bigoted about it, because you are using your own terms for normalcy to define what should and should not be allowed. Taking privileges away from those who don't conform is fascism in its simplist form.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men commited indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." -Romans 1: 26,27
If you do not believe in God, the Bible, or Paul's authority to speak for God, we must agree to disagree. If you believe this passage is metaphorical, we must agree to disagree. If you believe this passage is literal, it's hard to say homosexuality is a good thing. If it's not a good thing, is it a good idea for us as a society to hold it up as another alternate lifestyle?
Argent, I must respectfully disagree with your logic. Your argument seems to be: Group A does something bad so it doesn't matter if Group B does it, too. I say it doesn't matter if Group A or B does it, it's still wrong. Marriage granted by the state is a negotiable contract. As I said before, it seems silly to argue its sanctity. (Marriage in the church is a whole other topic I won't even touch.) However, by allowing gays to marry, we as a society acknowledge homosexuality as natural and desirable, or at least inevitable. I'm not sure I can agree with you that homosexuality is natural. Therefore, I'm not sure I agree that denying homosexuals a marriage license denies them a basic right.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:Heh. Now you're trying to paint the civil rights movement as the rebirth of neo-Nazism?
I could be wrong, Lalo, but I believe he was referring to your approach to those who oppose gay marriage.
The name-calling and--in a sense--dehumanizing of the opposition in this case is bothersome.
You've a right to your opinion, but a little tact, politeness, and respect for other people's opinions is needed here.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
We all know this, but the day Lalo displays any of those traits, we'll accuse him of being an impostor. Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
You see, AvidReader, you have no argument outside of your religious fundementalism. If I am not of your religion, then I am already damned, so it doesn't really mean anything to you that I am not allowed the same rights you are. I'm less of a person, right? While this may be an exacerbation of your own words, and not your words exactly, this is exactly what you're getting at. This is also exactly the logic people used to claim blacks were inferior to whites. And it's always interesting to see people use religious references to attack things they don't like, because they can never use the cornerstone of their religion, Jesus Christ himself, as an example of why they shun those they dislike. That's because Jesus did exactly the opposite of this, meeting with whores and bankers and criminals on an equal standing, not condemning them for who they were, and not denying them because of what they did. You would accuse and deny the least of God's children and assume the piety of your church, while ignoring the very lessons His own son left for everyone. Quote Romans, Acts, and Deuteronomy, but never the Gospels or Jesus' teachings when discussing those we do not like. If I had to choose to follow the teachings of someone from the Bible, I would choose Jesus over Paul or Moses any day. So, if you are, as Lalo says, using "God hates fags" as your justification against gay marriage, then you are indeed a bigot, and you are not sitting on a fence on the subject.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:However, by allowing gays to marry, we as a society acknowledge homosexuality as natural and desirable, or at least inevitable.
And how is this so different from the numerous other types of people we allow people to marry?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
God does not hate fags. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." -Romans 3:23, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." -Romans 5:8, "As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one.'" Romans 3:10, "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." -John 15:12
Argent, since my "religious fundamentalism" is the most important part of my life, why shouldn't it be the cornerstone of my beliefs on any subject? Also, I believe I have mentioned my gay friends in at least two posts. How much can I hate them if I willingly associate with them? Yes, I have sat down to eat with them. Since they are not Christian it has never been my place to say anything to them on the subject. Christians are called to be accountable to each other, but we're not called to worry about those outside the church. Share the good news with them, sure, but not condemn. It's none of my business what they want to do. Hence the fence sitting. It's none of my business, but don't ask me to approve of it. Leave me out of it.
Fugu, again, Group A does it so Group B must be able to do it too doesn't work for me. It's still wrong whoever's doing it. But this isn't a thread on straight sham weddings or other weirdness. It's on homosexuality.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Why should your fundementalism not be the cornerstone of your religion? Because Christ should be, not Paul or his laws. When you ignore Christ's works in favor of Paul's laws (where you only quote specific verses, not the whole of the statements), you bear false witness. By your own rules of fundementalism, you are breaking the very cornerstone you place your faith on.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Argent, well I'm not going to quote entire books of the Bible for you. Everything I quoted was pretty self contained. It's hard to quote Jesus on the subject because he addressed the more general topic of sexual immorality without addressing homosexuality specifically. And I generally interpret "religous fundamentalism" to mean anything about Christianity liberals don't like. I'm partial to the love God, love your neighbors bit. Blessed to be a blessing is good, too. But neither addresses the topic at hand directly. Paul's advice does. Since Paul worked for God through divine revelation, I don't have a problem with anyone quoting him in context, which I believe I did.
Everyone sins. Get over it. We're supposed to try to be perfect, but it will never happen. Only Jesus was perfect. We should love everyone, even sinners and our enemies. "You have heard it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." -Matthew 5: 43-45
Anyone who preaches hate is wrong. But saying we should accept any behavior because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings doesn't work either.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're quite right. We should make legal distinctions with no basis in non-religious reasoning, and regardless of the inconsistencies involved.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Mack, I have given up hope of convincing anyone, around here or otherwise. I am just tired of being depicted as a bigot. I have an opinion, and that is all. I have done nothing to harm anyone.
Argent, your argument seems to suppose that Christ and Paul are in opposition to each other. I see no such opposition. I suspect that, like myself, AvidReader believes that Paul and Jesus taught essentially the same gospel with any differences being purely a matter of emphasis that had to do with the cultures they were speaking to.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
Paul taught the same gospel as Jesus? Jesus taught love, while Paul, like Moses, taught Law. Jesus taught that when it comes down to a contest between Law and Love, to choose Love.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote: Jesus taught love, while Paul, like Moses, taught Law.
*sends out a call in all directions to evangelicals* Take a look at this one! *snicker*
Okay, that wasn't fair. I apologize. Most evangelicals would doubtless go much farther than I and say that Paul explicitly denounced the Law-principle. I disagree with them, but disagree with you as well.
Take a look at this from Romans:
quote: Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Love and Law, in other words, are not the separate concepts you are making them out to be. Law is merely the expanded version, Love the summary.
Jesus agrees (this should be more familiar):
quote: Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Great posts, Geoff..
I'm glad ALL parties here recognize the freedom of everyone to express their viewpoints without slander. Even when we don't agree, we can defend each other's right to say how we feel.
The one thing I don't understand in all this gay-marriage furor is why the gays suddenly feel a need for this. Legally, they could ALWAYS write up a document of communal property (what's mine is 1/2 yours, what's yours is 1/2 mine) as a legal contract, just as married couple have, as far as property split. In fact, there isn't ANY of the current arguments for gay marriage that I can see that enables to do anything they couldn't do before through legal means.
I think of marriage as being a spiritual convenant, as well as legal, and having the law give approval to "same sex marriage" still doesn't mean the churches will give approval, or that gay marriages can ever be performed in a church (some churches, at least) -- I don't see the purpose.
So what exactly are they trying to prove through all this?
My concern is that I have heard (not documented) that some of the wording proposed for this does not really specify "same-sex" marriage, but just basically says marriages between two "applicants" -- and that can be interpreted a LOT of differents ways. Not necessarily boy-girl or boy-boy but maybe even boy-sheep or some such thing. It could open a major can of worms if we rush into legal changes without thinking of all possible long-term ramifications.
Farmgirl
[ February 14, 2004, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
several things-
One, while our religious beliefs are obviously going to influence how we personally see things, our government should NOT have laws based soley on religious beliefs, as one of the important things about our government to us is freedom of religion-therefor it would be denying freedom of religion if we started making laws based on one or even several religions without some logic basis as well.
Two, we have yet to see any argument outside of biblical references that gives any harms of homosexuality, or applies outside of a religion. So, if we're going to make a law against homosexual marraige, don't we need some secular reasons why it's bad? Y'all have mentioned possible ramifications-can we name some that would be unique to homosexual marraiges? And if we can't-what right to we have to legally deny people something that could easily bring happiness on the basis of our belief that they will be going ot hell?
and Framgirl-what were blacks trying to prove by sitting and eating in white resturants? THAT THEY WERE EQUAL, and entitled to the same rights. Maybe the owners of those resturants would never willingly let them eat there-but as long as they kept pushing it, eventually generations grew out of it, where they thought nothing of eating in the same resturant with black people. Maybe that is what gays are trying for? And maybe they're hoping that once they've gotten common people to accept them, churches may someday accept their marriages too. Or maybe they're simply trying to get equal treatment legally speaking. But there certainly is plenty to be proved by this.
[ February 14, 2004, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
social security? partner benefits from your company? rights in the hospital (in which no legal form will be good enough for some parents who deny partners).
here is a brief list. not all of them can be given by legal documents.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
btw, "civil unions" are currently different from "civil marriages." This is why they wanted civil marriages in Massachusetts. Civil Unions do not include any federal benefits like social security and federal taxes.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Let's face it, Toretha...Aside from Geoff's "Be cautious, wait and see if it has side effects", there really is no secular argument. If there ever is, it won't be until gay marriage is too entrenched in society to change that it appears--you know, kinda like suddenly discovering the dangers of secondhand smoke.
That's why I have given up hope of changing anyone's opinion. It's not like I've ever managed to before.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Macc, at the very least, we can present more facts and studies. The link I just put up, for example, may be new to people. They may not realize just how many benefits a married couple have automatically.
And really. Would it change any of your minds if the federal version of marriage were called "civil unions" across the board? That way your precious "religious marriage" term is saved for the Church. Civil unions for any two adult homo sapiens.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
But the smoking thing is slowly changing. It's being banned in more and more places, thank goodness.
And anyway-since when does our not knowing of any certain harmsmeans we should refuse to allow a thing because harms MIGHT exist that we would find out later? If we took that attitude toward every policy, we would never change at all. That's ridiculous.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I thought I had posted a good deal of studies and facts. Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Suneun, I believe I posted elsewhere that "religious marriage" is not a term I particularly care about. Properly speaking, I am not sure there should be any such thing as religious marriage; the early church accepted as married whoever complied with the legal regulations of their era, aside from a few basic restrictions (like having one male and one female as parties) and does not seem to have performed wedding ceremonies. Religious marriage is not, therefore, "precious" to me, and preserving civil marriage is all the more important, though not absolutely vital.
There is, of course, no hope of preserving it. That's usually the case with anything that matters.
Toretha, I believe I was simply referring to Geoff's argument that we should be cautious when making sweeping social changes instead of jumping in headfirst.
[ February 14, 2004, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Face it, Toretha, noone who uses the 'god doesn't like homosexuality' opinion is going to change their mind. And they're the ones who are in the majority.
They're just too scared to look outside their narrow view, and try to accept something they don't understand. They don't even think that when Jesus taught 'love thy neighbor', he didn't mean, 'love your neighbor who isn't gay'. He meant everyone, but that's just a little too hard for them to comprehend.
By the way, in warding off the no-doubt irate posts I'm going to field, I define love as un-reserved acceptance, with no thoughts of their 'sin', or their 'wrongness'. Anything like that creeping in is just a lesser form of judgement.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
*grins at jon* no, I won't face it, because it's not true. People who have used that argument HAVE changed their minds before, and will do so again. And how do you know who is in the majority? Even if they were, what difference would it make to my questions?
And I'm sure they know Jesus meant everyone, they just love gay people, or try to while disapproving of their lifestyle. Being angry at people for being religious isn't going to help.
Oh, and what on earth are you doing online but not on AIM?!? I'm bored over here, and I never told you about the Dork Parade!
[ February 14, 2004, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: -- they're still harassed and abused and murdered across the country for their shared trait of homosexuality
and the legalization of same-sex marriage is simply going to make this all go away???
The types of people who would harass, abuse and murder homosexuals will NOT have their mind changed simply by the government rubber-stamping homosexual marriage as okay. In fact, it might even increase for awhile as they protest.
I just think the gays are expecting this to change a lot more things than it truly will. Public law doesn't necessarily change public opinion. It didn't change the division of the country on the abortion issue, and it probably won't on this issue either.
FG
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
they weren't saying legalizing gay marriages would make it go away. they were showing how the situation of gay people can be equated with what used to be the situation of black people.
And maybe, just maybe if the government started treating that minority as equal in law, that would slowly leak over into the way people think. Probably not for the people now, but for their children, it might change their minds.
[ February 14, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Yeah, I know, Toretha. I'm just fed up with people saying that it's wrong for two people to love eachother just because their mental switches are flipped differently than the majority's. Or rather, doing that, and then saying that it's God's Will to hate them and harass them, and then trying to make that LAW.
I'm also fed up with seeing people present good, reasonable, researched arguments, a la Mack, then getting stopped short by some obscure bible verse that's only claim to fame is that the writer is allegedly 'inspired'.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:I just think the gays are expecting this to change a lot more things than it truly will.
Really? Did you ask them?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
She calls homosexual people "the gays." Somehow I doubt she knows any.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Hey mack, I love that you did lots of research and presented lots of stuff. I hope you didn't think that I was ignoring your post. I'm just reaffirming the need for good information to make it out there.
And Farmgirl, I was addressing your suggestion that gays can simply write down a few legal documents and be done with it. Are you convinced that maybe gay couples are missing out on a lot of priviledges given to straight couples? Maybe homosexual couples deserve those priviledges, too.
Hey Macc, I know you're okay with the civil union, civil marriage terminology. I was addressing it to people who have a problem with the semantics. Diff paragraph, diff audience =)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Just to make sure people understand the sorts of rights involved with marriage, and which sorts of rights homosexual couples do not get access to:
quote:Love and Law, in other words, are not the separate concepts you are making them out to be. Law is merely the expanded version, Love the summary
Can you quote me a passage where Jesus said it was Love when you denied a citizen equal opportunity? If, by Paul's own words, we all have sinned before God, why are we singling out homosexuals to not have the same right to marry as everyone else? I'm not saying the church must endorse homosexuality, I'm saying the church is not, despite what it thinks to the contrary, the sole arbitter on the rights and privileges for the human race. When people use biblical quotes to argue against giving homosexuals equal rights, then they are acting as sole arbitters of the human race. When the church is sinless, when there isn't some scandal in the leadership of some church body, then they can cast the first stone at a homosexual couple. This has yet to have happened.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They're just too scared to look outside their narrow view, and try to accept something they don't understand.
So you know the internal motivations of everyone who thinks homosexual actions are sinful? Did you arrive at this knowledge magically? Or were you divinely inspired?
quote:They don't even think that when Jesus taught 'love thy neighbor', he didn't mean, 'love your neighbor who isn't gay'. He meant everyone, but that's just a little too hard for them to comprehend.
It's possible to love someone and still think that some of their actions are sinful. I believe so, and in fact need it to be so since otherwise God wouldn't love me.
quote:By the way, in warding off the no-doubt irate posts I'm going to field, I define love as un-reserved acceptance, with no thoughts of their 'sin', or their 'wrongness'. Anything like that creeping in is just a lesser form of judgement.
Love might involve unreserved acceptance of people. It is certainly not unreserved acceptance of their actions. Otherwise, how could you love racists or slaveholders?
Dagonee P.S. To fend off reactions, I'll post the usual disclaimer that I am in favor of homosexual couples receiving the same legal recognition and benefits as heterosexual couples, and, as I have stated in other threads, think that the civil/legal aspect of marriage should just be renamed "civil union." Let each person entering into it attach their own definition of marriage on according to the dictates of their conscious if they desire anything more.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:He isn't forcing anyone to get married. He isn't forcing the citizenry of San Francisco to break the law. There is no coercion on his part which is part of abusing power. He is inviting people to participate in what IS given to them in the constitution, despite the unconstitutional law.
Okay, then a different counterexample perhaps...
Let's say a mayor of some city decides on his own that the free speech clause of the constitution really does give public schools the right to say prayers over the school loudspeakers. You're saying it's okay for him to allow the city schools to have prayers, provided there's no coersion on his part?
Or let's say some mayor thinks anti-drug laws should be eliminated. Are you saying he has the right to allow drugs to be sold unhindered in his city, provided he doesn't force anyone to use them?
Or let's say some mayor in some city is particularly fundamentalist, and thinks men should have the right to abuse their wives if they want to. Are you saying he has the right to allow abuse of women in his city, provided he doesn't actually force them to do it?
Or let's say some mayor of some city is a pedophile, and believes the laws should be changed to allow the kidnapping and rape of children. So, he declares that people can kidnap kids, bring them to his jurisdiction, do whatever they want with them, and have no fear of being arrested as long as they stay within the boundries of the city. Are you saying this sort of civil disobedience is acceptable, provided he merely offers these people the opportunity, and doesn't force them to do anything?
There is no shortage of examples, some contraversial, some more blatantly wrong. But all these are examples of people in power who want to advance a certain political view, and think they can do whatever they want to advance it. They are all cases of a public official using his public powers to advocate his own personal cause, in the name of civil disobedience.
And you can't just come out and say "Well, I think this San Fransisco guy is right, so he can do what he wants, but I think these other people are just wrong, so they can't do civil disobedience for their own views." If you let a liberal mayor do it, conservatives are going to feel they can do it too, and they won't be asking you beforehand. If they have the power and think it's okay, they'll just go ahead and do it like this mayor has, and you'll be the one left on the sidelines complaining about 'abuse of power'.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Oh holy crap. I didn't think there could be such a thing as a post longer than mine, but Lalo managed it
quote:What I find remarkable about this paragraph, Geoff, is that you seem to be implying that it's okay to keep homosexuals as a sub-class of society because they're not an ethnic group -- if they were, though, of course it would be wrong to deny them equality.
What I was really trying to say is that you (and many others who agree with you) are leaping rather quickly to the name-calling phase, tarring people opposed to gay marriage as bigots who probably want to see black people in chains, Japanese in camps, and women barefoot in the kitchen. I'm saying that homosexuality is a different thing because instead of being an issue of race, heritage, or gender, it's an issue of psychology, whose cause we have yet to reliably determine. We don't know how black-and-white the distinction is between gays and straights, what causes that distinction, or really, what the healthiest way to address homosexual feelings might be, or if there is more than one legitimate way, based on the source or strength of those feelings. All we have is idealogies informed by biased, contradictive studies and sources on both sides. So forgive me if I show a little skepticism on this subject, rather than leaping into the fray defending something that I do not yet know to be right. I do not see why this should make me a bigot or whatever nasty word you want to call me today.
quote:Heh. Yes, Geoff, there's a gay agenda. They're trying to rule the country! Corrupt our children! Clog up our toilets! C'mon, dude, I usually have respect for you. Earn it as you usually do.
If you have ever shown me the least respect, this is the first I've heard of it But I appreciate the patronizing tone. The gay agenda is: To mandate that homosexual relationships be recognized as equivalent to heterosexual relationships, in all ways, under the law. I personally find this counterintuitive, since they are, in fact, different things. For example, the continuation of our species depends on stable heterosexual relationships producing healthy children. I didn't make that up, nor did I arbitrarily invent it to persecute someone. It is the major reason why heterosexual marriage has been protected by law for ages, and I've really yet to see any similar compelling reason brought up to support the protection of homosexual marriage. Do you have one? I'd love to hear it. Persuade me.
quote:There is no "gay political agenda," except for the drive to get equal rights -- they're not seeking preferential treatment. If any group's seeking preferential treatment, it's the side that wants to prevent other monogamous couples from equality. Guess which side that is, Geoff?
See, this is all semantics. You say "equality" when you mean to recognize two different types of relationships as the same thing. I, personally, call recognizing them as different things "intellectual honesty". If we approve gay marriage, will we then create a new word for the practice of linking a mating pair of humans in a stable household? Or will the word "marriage" be widened to include all sexually-charged friendships between two humans, viable or not, in the interest of not hurting some humans' feelings by making them feel different?
quote:Are you so incapable of addressing why homosexuals don't deserve equal rights that you resort to false ad hominem attacks? It's pathetic, guy.
Am I the only one who thinks this complaint is particularly funny following so closely on the heels of ...
quote:Don't be a jackass, Geoff.
Dude, you have got to start looking in the mirror now and then. It might help you notice that beam in your eye
quote:But all that's happening here is the gift of equality to citizens -- exactly what's in accordance with the national and Californian Constitutions. Newsom's not ramming new laws down Californian throats -- Newsom's simply acting as the Constitution mandates he should.
You applaud him for being such a freethinking revolutionary, yet you try to explain away his behavior as simply following the letter of the law? Cute. This guy is using his authority to pick and choose the laws he thinks the people should follow, at his whim. That's what dictators get to do. I don't want those in my country.
Look, my people gave up a treasured marriage practice over a hundred years ago in order to live in peace with the will of the people in our nation. I think that as a Mormon, I am in a pretty unassailable position when I ask another minority group to do the same, at least until the rest of us are sufficiently persuaded. I don't think anyone should have the right to ram new laws down the throats of the American people without their approval.
quote:I had no idea I was a man-hating misanthrope, Geoff.
If you believe that the lack of a father in a home can be a bad thing, then that statement doesn't apply to you.
quote:You're not the only one that hates the idea that kids grow up in broken homes. I fully agree. And yet, if the alternative's growing up in a united, but abusive home, I fully support the right of women and men to seperate from their abusive or adulterous or neglectful spouses.
If you're saying that the ONLY alternative to divorce is abusive marriages, then you do live in a skewed world I think that divorce FOR CAUSE (such as adultery or abuse) is totally warranted, and is often in the best interest of the children. But divorce just because the couple is too lazy or childish to settle minor differences is pathetic.
quote:We did? That's news to me -- I had no idea abortion was instituted for purposes of removing responsibility and establishing equality. Can you provide any evidence over that, or is abortion just a favorite bugaboo that you wanted to complain about?
Then you explain to me why abortion is a part of the modern feminist movement. If it wasn't instituted as a means of establishing female equality, what is it doing there?
quote:What I love about all these analogies, Geoff, is that you're trying to "prove" with them that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry.
What I love is that you see even a moderate, skeptical position as an antagonistic one. All I'm saying is, I'm not yet persuaded that this is the right course, and I believe I have good reasons to question the wisdom of this change. I'm inviting you to persuade me, but all you're interested in doing is insulting me and repeating the same tired rhetoric, leaning on semantics to make my position look bad without actually addressing it. Your lack of ability to create a compelling counterargument isn't doing a lot to make me feel wrong
quote:And why did you think you would show why homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry with analogies that show the dangers of abortion (which homosexuals don't need), the merits of marriage (which homosexuals long to be able to participate in), and divorce (which 60% of all heterosexual marriages end in)?
I would love to see the percentages on homosexual relationships that last until death. Do you think they're higher or lower than 40%?
Since there are never any joint children, it's not like any such couples will need to stay together "for the sake of the kids". Come to think of it, what higher purpose DOES a homosexual couple have to stay together if they begin to argue and dislike one another? I can't think of a one, please inform me.
But if I'm right, and there isn't a higher purpose, then what is the point of getting married and obligating one another to stay in a relationship, even when it gets hard? It makes sense to insist that mating pairs of humans stay together through thick and thin, for the sake of the next generation, but why put homosexuals under the same restrictions?
Of course, these days, with easy divorce, there are no such restrictions, are there? Marriage isn't an obligation, anymore, it's more like a temporary, handshake agreement. Maybe marriage is already dead, and this is just the final, defiant nail in the coffin.
Perhaps if we still considered marriage to be a lifelong responsibility and an honorable burden, rather than a "fun thing to do when you're in LUUV!" it wouldn't be an issue of equal rights. Gays want to be free of the responsibility of living a heterosexual lifestyle and continuing the species, so that they can pursue their own psychological preferences. That's fine, I will fight to the death to preserve their right to do so. But it seems really counterintuitive to willingly abandon something, and then demand the right to be recognized as though you were doing it.
Marriage is supposed to be a difficult, but rewarding, obligation taken on by men and women who wish to mate. Those who wish to do something else should do something else. This shouldn't be an argument.
Hmm. Interesting. I seem to have talked myself into actually directly disagreeing with gay marriage Either way, I'm open to being persuaded. Just show me a compelling reason why I'm wrong, without resorting to demonization and pointless semantic arguments, and I'd love to listen.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: She calls homosexual people "the gays." Somehow I doubt she knows any.
I assume you are referring to me in this.
I have several friends and acquaintances that are gay. I have one very close cousin who is openly gay and I love him dearly -- we think very highly of each other and enjoy spending time together. He and I have touched on this subject as well, and can talk about it with civility (unlike you) and can both see each other's viewpoint without necessarily fully agreeing with each other.
Farmgirl
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Here's the puzzling thing.... Why do straight couples get legal marriage? After all, marriage is, in your terms, a binding relationship for the purpose of mating. A religious ceremony often celebrates the beginning of that. Then why federal marriage? Do they really need the government to okay their right to stay together and mate?
I argue that the reason people get the legal marriage is multifold, but includes the wish to have conferred upon them the over 1400 automatic rights granted to a partnership. Some of those rights are there to protect future children. Many of those rights are to protect each spouse.
There seems to be the Ideal Example: a straight couple who marry in order to remain together for life and make children. Great. Except for the multitudes of straight people who marry each other for life and don't make children together. Either they don't, they can't, or they won't (etc). Fertility problems abound. Conscious choice abounds. But you wouldn't automatically restrict their right to legal marriage. Because you understand that they still do love each other. And they often find ways to solve this problem. They adopt, they raise pets, they use fertility drugs, they get artificial insemination, they get a surrogate, they have no children at all and decide that they're alright.
But those children aren't "theirs." How could they love those children as much as those parents who can make their own? But they do. Truly, they love those children. So the legal rights to protect their kids are necessary. And even those legal rights to protect each other are necessary. We're happy for those families, the ones that make it work, even though it seemed futile for them.
Now we get to the homosexual couples. Yes, many of them settle down and stay with the same person for years, decades, a lifetime. I don't know a statistic for "divorce-equivalent." But the statistics on those hundreds of marriages in San Francisco will be interesting. Many of them have been together for decades, leaping at this chance.
Why are they getting married? Again, there's a multitude of reasons. I'm sure I can't think of them all. Social acceptance. Celebration. Legal rights. Political Motivation. And yes, many of these couples have children. Through adoption, through surrogacy, through insemination, through a multitute of other means. And they love their children. Even though both partners are not related to the child. Just as a step-father can love a child, these people can love their children. And those children should be afforded the same priviledges as children whose parents are straight and married.
I don't want to argue no-fault divorces with you. I really don't feel strongly enough about that issue. But the faces of the gay population are many. For every example of a druggie gay man, or a lesbian who never settles down, there is an example of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who got married after 51 years of being together. Or Wendy Higgins-Goodell and her partner who got married after 13 years of being together and have a one-year old baby that is her partner's by artificial insemination.
I want those people to be able to celebrate their partnership, and I want them to be legally recognized.
[ February 14, 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've got a side question that is related, but not directly.
I am currently operating under the assumption that G.W.B is making all of the noises about a constituitonal ammendment on marriage to appease a significant part of his voting bloc. I don't think the man will actually push the bill, though he might produce it, because if the bill passes it will alienate another siginificant part of his voting block that feel that the government should stay out of everything personal of everybody. Many of these types don't get married because they don't want it on paper anywhere that they are actually married.
Anyway, I could be wrong. If GWB actually makes a serious attempt to push this bill through I won't vote for the man. Because like Bob_Scopatz, I think they have better things to do, includling trying to balance the budget, than getting kerfluffled over this.
AJ
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Banna, yeah... I believe that an amendment concerning Marriage definement might go badly with those who believe strongly in States' Rights. Pat Buchanan, for example, seems to believe very strongly that each state should make decisions on sodomy. The correlation is that he wouldn't be so happy with GWB pushing for a federal mandate like this.
[ February 14, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Geoff: And to back out of another potential non-argument,... I don't think the Mayor is necessarily right in giving those marriage licenses. He's making an interesting stand on an important topic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The most interesting thing about this event is that someone will have to go to court to anull these marriages (assuming the local recorder is the final non-judicial authority on the subject).
It was an interesting tactic to change the initiative, if nothing else. Now people opposed will have to say, in public, "make these people not married because they're gay." It's a little different argument to make than "I'd love to record these people's marriage licenses, your Honor, but it's just not within my discretion."
Dagonee
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
This is not really the central topic of this thread, but I can't let this comment of Geoff's pass unremarked:
quote:We legalized abortion, thinking of it as a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men.
Is that the reason we legalized abortion? Silly me. I thought it was to prevent any more women from dying in botched backroom abortions or self-induced abortions. At least, that's what was talked about back when abortion was first legalized.
I don't recall anyone ever suggesting using abortion as "a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men." That's what contraceptive methods are for, and they began to be widely discussed, with the goal of educating women about them, during that time period.
**Ela**
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
For those that object to Gay marriges on religious grounds, what about Atheist who marry? Are those covered under religion? What about JP marriges? Those are performed by state/county officials, not clergy. Are those bound under religion? THAT my friends is the crux of the matter. Government has stuck its nose into Marriage thus making it a secular affair.
Those that object on moral grounds, it was morally acceptable to deny Blacks the Right to Vote, To be paid equal measure for work performed, servitude (Sharecroppers anyone?) Is that still morally acceptable? If so then we need to turn back 40 plus years of Affirmative Action and the Civil Rights afforded to minorities.
Was it morally right to have laws banning interracial marriages?
If you answer No to any of those, then what is the difference in Gay marriges?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
AJ...as do we on this board.
I mean, really, the only reasons I get upset about this issue are:
1) There are contributing citizens who do not have the same rights as everyone else, and I'm ashamed of us as a Nation for not just looking at the issue and figuring something out.
2) It strikes me as very hypocritical for our President and his party to call themselves "defenders of the Constitution" while promoting an amendment that would restrict personal freedoms for any person or group of people on any basis OTHER THAN the need to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens. (i.e., by the way, this takes care of all "other considerations" as far as I'm concerned -- you know, how it's okay to pass laws based on morality when it's for things like murder, but not when it's for things like restricting gay people.)
3) I personally do not think that religion is a good enough reason to pass a law. For every religious belief out there of the majority, there is a LEGITIMATE, non-harmful opposing opinion from another religion that OBJECTIVELY is just as valid to its practitioners. And we haven't even reached the idea of what to do about atheists and agnostics who also have a right to be represented. So, basically, I think laws should focus on the things we want to achieve based on our founding principles -- I'm coming back to life, liberty and ht pursuit of happiness -- and not come from anyone's Scripture, no matter how many people believe in that Book.
4) There are always going to be things we debate and fret over. As social change occurs, its going to be uncomfortable for some. But we can usually tell what the right thing to do is FOR AMERICA, AS AMERICANS. And the general rule is "everyone gets to do what they want as long as that doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to the basic pursuits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happines. In other words, most of the stuff surrounding this issue is nobody's damned business, and certainly not the government's.
So, we should end the debate and get out of the way of people pursuing their own happiness without doing harm to anyone else.
Okay...now here's where the reductio ad absurdum comes in. But wait! That means people will start marrying their dogs or having multiple spouses, or what have you! Where will it end?
And all I have to say to that is it is a piss-poor reason to continue denying basic equality to a class of living, breathing AMERICANS because of a worry about something far-fetched that no-one is even asking for now.
And if you're that worried about it, then work on passing THAT law, but get the heck out of the way on gay marriage because the situation we have is bad now and people who are contributors to this society shouldn't have to wait, or beg, or fight for the rights that everyone else gets as a matter of course. And fairness is more important than absurd-extreme arguments.
So, I think this issue is resolved. What we need now is for everyone to just agree to the above, write to their congressional representatives and let's get off the damn subject and onto something that actually isn't such a no brainer!!!!!
Thanks...
I'll take my fee in small private islands...
BY THE WAY...by my criteria above, we could legitimately argue the abortion issue... It all depends on at what point during gestation something becomes SOMEONE and that SOMEONE is considered imbued with the rights of an AMERICAN. I figure that point is reached when you are able to vote or fight for the contry, or when you get your first paycheck (whichever comes first). But others, I understand, but the point much earlier in the life cycle of humans.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Sun, I don't believe that marriage exists so that happy, lovey-dovey couples can celebrate their relationships and have them legally recognized. I believe it exists because it is in the best interest of society that the next generation (produced overwhelmingly by heterosexual couples) be raised in a stable environment with both parents present and involved.
Now, as a grand ideal, that is hard to achieve. People fail quite a bit at all aspects of it, from the "stable" part to the "present and involved" part, and the trend has only been to make it worse. As I've already cited, divorce is becoming increasingly common, and very weirdly, when we noticed the discrepancy that men were spending all their time at work, and women were spending all their time at home, and that felt unfair to a lot of people, our solution was to remove women from the home, too, rather than to put men back in it. So now, more often than not, neither parent has time to care for the kids, and we're spiraling into continually worsening social ills.
(Now, don't go off all half-cocked and tell me that I think equal rights for women is a bad thing for society. I don't. I think that judging a person's worth by their success in their career, rather than by their success in the home, regardless of their gender, is a bad thing for society. I think that telling a woman that she must be a CEO to be counted a success is as bad as telling that to a man, and I think it does harm to both. It's far more important to be a good father, mother, uncle, aunt, son, daughter, or friend.)
So, a lot can go wrong with marriage, and already has. Right now, I don't think that the social pressures surrounding marriage have the power anymore to establish and maintain stable environments for child-rearing. Within some throwback communities (like my own culture), it still functions, but in the larger society, it is defunct.
So, again, perhaps gay marriage isn't a revolution as much as it is a symptom of the fact that marriage no longer holds any meaning for the American people. But if that is true, then I'm wondering if something can be done to return the true benefits of marriage (not just the tax and legal advantages) to the mating household, without making homosexuals feel violated all over again. Some states are creating forms of marriage that are much harder to dissolve ... and perhaps that, or something like it, will be the answer.
But we need a solution to this problem, badly. Far more than we need a solution to the gay-marriage issue. The issue of establishing and maintaining stable child-rearing environments for mating pairs is vital to the next generation of Americans — ALL of them, both gay and straight. Gay marriage, while it may make some homosexuals feel better about themselves, is not that solution. I'd like to know what is.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ela's right about the issue of abortion versus contraceptives and women's equality, as I recall it.
The problem arises, I suppose, when you have women using abortion as a method of contraception (or in place of it, I suppose would be more correct). Then, you do have to at least consider that if it wasn't there, it would not be possible to remove the unwanted burden of childbirth/rearing.
So, there is a freedom (and not just one, btw) associated with being able to stop the life growing inside one's body and that is an aspect of the abortion issue that should not be ignored. It's where the "it's my body" argument comes to play most.
Lots of facets on that one and we might as well talk about it because I've already set National policy on the gay marriage thing, so this thread will run out of steam pretty quickly without being able to move on to abortion...
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I dunno, Geoff. I don't see how you're getting from my essay to yours.
Stability through Legal Partnership is desired for a couple to raise a child.
Couples can love children even when those children aren't related by blood.
There are gay couples who wish to have Stability through Legal Partnership to raise a child.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:For example, the continuation of our species depends on stable heterosexual relationships producing healthy children. I didn't make that up, nor did I arbitrarily invent it to persecute someone. It is the major reason why heterosexual marriage has been protected by law for ages, and I've really yet to see any similar compelling reason brought up to support the protection of homosexual marriage.
Even ignoring that there's significant debate as to the origins of marriage, with theories being proposed ranging from it being a method of solidifying control over lines of descent, to it arising to co-opt a female power structure in early tribes, to it resulting from natural dynamics in any evenly split population, to many others, there're still huge problems with this line of reasoning.
One: there are numerous species which raise children in different ways yet survive.
Two: there are several human cultures which raise children in different ways (ie communally) and survive.
Three: the presence of stable homosexual relations does not result in the fewer presence of stable heterosexual relations, so it is not compromising this "goal" any, however the presence of stable homosexual relationships does help society out both by being a stabilizing force for that segment of the population AND by helping raise children (for instance through adoption), which as I have already pointed out every single sociological study so far has found hom couples can do just as well as het couples.
Four: the human race is not about reproduction, particularly today. In the past it was an exceedingly sufficient reason to get a divorce if one's spouse could not produce children (particularly if one was the male). While society allows such divorces for other reasons, nowadays the value of the relationship is no longer considered to lie in ability to make babies.
Five: There are lots of things that have been exceedingly long traditions, such as slavery. That this reasoning behind marriage has a long history doesn't make it a good reasoning (even if it is true, which is doubtful imo out of the theories that have been advanced).
Six: Humans would be evolutionarily more successful if we were more like cockroaches. This does not mean we should be more like cockroaches. Evolutionary success carries no automatic moral imperative. You might argue that survival of the species does, but we are in no danger of dying out as a species even if we completely dissolve civil heterosexual marriage. In fact, I'd bet society would change remarkably little, except everyone would have many fewer rights wrt their loved ones.
Seven: that's just it, this is about rights. Not even really the right to marry, but the right to live with whom you love (immigration rights), to provide for your loved one with your benefits (social security, veteran's benefits, et cetera), to mourn for your loved one's death (guaranteed bereavement leave), to ensure your loved one's wishes are carried out in death as in life (burial/cremation), to receive what your loved one says in confidence without being forced to confess it in court (marital privilege).
Eight: The major reason heterosexual marriage has been protected by law for so long is religion. When religion is the organization that does the marrying and also has huge influence throughout civil government, what it wants protected gets protected. Heck, until relatively recently nobody knew what evolution was, and certainly weren't basing their decisions off of it. They were basing their decisions off of ideas about morals and religious worthiness, for the most part -- and considering that Christianity is a strong advocate of marriage, marriage was enforced.
If homosexual couples were given the same adoption rights as heterosexual couples there would be plenty of joint children. Are you seriously suggesting that the marriages of people who don't or can't have children biologically are inherently less stable and worthwhile than those of they who can and do? That adopted and step children are less meaningful than those genetically related to both parents? I'm suprised at you.
Also, Geoff, I rather suspect you'd find well under 10% of heterosexual relationships last until death. After all, not much over two thirds of marriages do, and by a huge degree most heterosexual relationships are not marriages, but dating.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:Is that the reason we legalized abortion? Silly me. I thought it was to prevent any more women from dying in botched backroom abortions or self-induced abortions. At least, that's what was talked about back when abortion was first legalized.
I don't recall anyone ever suggesting using abortion as "a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men." That's what contraceptive methods are for, and they began to be widely discussed, with the goal of educating women about them, during that time period.
Is that the case? I wouldn't know, I wasn't conscious then. But it seems to me to be a really bad reason. I mean, would you legalize something that you thought to be morally wrong, just because people were willingly endangering themselves to do it?
I assumed that those who made the decision did so because they believed that allowing abortions served some directly good purpose in the quest for gender equality, not just because some desperate women were standing behind them with coathangers, holding themselves hostage.
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
Bob_Scopatz Bob_Scopatz Bob_Scopatz
(well three seems like a nice number to stop at) AJ
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:22 percent of gay/bisexual couples are raising children as compared to 23 percent of married/heterosexual couples. Nearly the same amount of children have married, heterosexual parents as do the children who have partners are parents. (Gomes, 2003). Those 22 percent of children of these same-sex couples are in families where they are born “out of wedlock” another social depravity used as a mark for an immoral society. (Gomes, 2003). Were there legal civil marriages for same-sex couples, those 22 percent of children would be from unbroken homes.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
we should just repeat your essay every page. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:So, again, perhaps gay marriage isn't a revolution as much as it is a symptom of the fact that marriage no longer holds any meaning for the American people. But if that is true, then I'm wondering if something can be done to return the true benefits of marriage (not just the tax and legal advantages) to the mating household, without making homosexuals feel violated all over again. Some states are creating forms of marriage that are much harder to dissolve ... and perhaps that, or something like it, will be the answer.
But we need a solution to this problem, badly. Far more than we need a solution to the gay-marriage issue. The issue of establishing and maintaining stable child-rearing environments for mating pairs is vital to the next generation of Americans — ALL of them, both gay and straight. Gay marriage, while it may make some homosexuals feel better about themselves, is not that solution. I'd like to know what is.
Geoff, I submit that if the state is involved in this from any stanpoint other than to get the heck OUT of the way, the inevitable result will be government control of reproduction or government control of child-rearing.
See, there's a lot that non-government entities can do to help build stronger relationships for those who wish to have children and raise them. But the bottom line if government gets involved is going to be a question of "fitness" to do so. And those who are judged unfit to be parents will have to either be sterilized, segregated from the opposite sex, or have their inevitable offspring taken from them.
Long term, I don't see many alternatives.
In the meantime, I'd suggest not worrying so much about defending marriage. This is a fairness issue for some important economic benefits that accrue to married couples but not others. And it should be dealt with separately -- see my preceding post on this page -- the longish one.
Whatever happens to "marriage" in the US, we have a very simple and easy-to-solve problem related to non-heterosexual relationships. We need to get government out of the way and allow people the freedom to choose who they spend time with and stop penalizing those who don't fit within the norm.
If everyone just took a step back and said "you know, that part of it isn't fair...let's fix that" this problem would be over in an instant. And it'd be the best thing America could do.
Now the rest of your concerns...about marriage, etc. Those are much thornier thickets to hack our way through. Let's take those up separately from the fairness issue that is before us right now.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I assumed that those who made the decision did so because they believed that allowing abortions served some directly good purpose in the quest for gender equality, not just because some desperate women were standing behind them with coathangers, holding themselves hostage.
Actually, maybe someone can correct us all on this. I believe the majority opinion in Roe v Wade made the case in favor of abortion access as a right to privacy issue. In particular, if I recall correctly, the court was basically telling the government to get the heck out of what was a private medical decision.
I could be wrong.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Is that the case? I wouldn't know, I wasn't conscious then. But it seems to me to be a really bad reason. I mean, would you legalize something that you thought to be morally wrong, just because people were willingly endangering themselves to do it?
Yes, Yes, YES!!!
If a law hurts many, and helps few, it is a bad law. No matter how "moral" it may have been in the crafting process.
Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, I doubt it would even reduce the amount of them by half. What it would do is make the only available procedure much less safe, and lead to the deaths of countless women. So is making abortion illegal really a "moral" thing to do? Just because it sounds good on paper?
(Wow, an abortion/homosexuality thread. This could go 20+ pages )
Edit: And I believe you are correct Bob, and that remains my primary reason for being pro-choice
[ February 14, 2004, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
fugu, I only really have a few points to address your several:
1. If you can imagine an implement a vastly new social order which benefits the next generation as well as stably-married parents do, then I invite you to do it. I think, however, that we will be much more successful trying to implement one with which the American people are already familiar.
2. To survive is not the same as to thrive. Sure, we're not as worried about species survival these days. But we are intensely worried about the success and relative happiness and health of the American people, and I believe that we should pattern our society in a manner that contributes to our ability to thrive.
3. In reference to the evolution of marriage, the reason that a social institution was originally put in place is often very different from the reason it fails or succeeds. Marriage didn't have to be created specifically for the purposes I cited, but that doesn't mean it doesn't WORK that way. I think there is a reason why the vast majority of successful, thriving societies are built from monogamous marriages.
4. As to your assertion that the main reason for continued marriage is the influence of religion ... why do you think that marriage is so important to those religions?
5. I have no problem with gay couples receiving the various rights that married couples have, or with married couples losing them in the interest of fairness. If that's all it's about, then I say go for it.
And a final note (which also addresses Bob's point that government should stay out of the way) maybe the best solution is to completely remove state-sanctioned marriage from the books, and let it be a solely religious arrangement. In a hundred years, we'll see whose descendants come out the healthiest
I think I'm just kidding, though ... I think that society needs marriage more than it realizes. As we have made ourselves increasingly childish, we have lost the sense of responsibility that leads people to take such social strictures seriously as applying to THEM. It's something we need to relearn, and I'm more than a little afraid of what it might take to teach us.
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
Xavier, Shall we throw prostitution in for good measure?
AJ
[ February 14, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Banna_Oj ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I assumed that those who made the decision did so because they believed that allowing abortions served some directly good purpose in the quest for gender equality, not just because some desperate women were standing behind them with coathangers, holding themselves hostage.
I'm sorry, Geoff, but your assumption is just plain wrong. I thought that was what I said before, and I am saying it again.
**Ela**
Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
quote:Face it, Toretha, noone who uses the 'god doesn't like homosexuality' opinion is going to change their mind. And they're the ones who are in the majority.
So we have those who genuinely believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and those who use it to cover their bigotry or fear or ignorance.
I like your quote.
I also liked mackillian's essay, speaking as an old English teacher.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
A useless essay where all the points of it are seemingly ignored, even when I point them out AGAIN.
[ironically, I had bad grammar. o_O]
[ February 14, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: mackillian ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
bob, here is a synopsis of the findings from Roe v Wade. I poked around, but I'm not good enough to summarize it so quickly.
It's complicated =).
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, I doubt it would even reduce the amount of them by half. What it would do is make the only available procedure much less safe, and lead to the deaths of countless women. So is making abortion illegal really a "moral" thing to do? Just because it sounds good on paper?
Exactly, Xavier. Thank you for bringing up that point.
**Ela**
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well, it does seem that Geoff is okay with legalizing something like marriage... Kinda like the earlier compromise we had going... call all of them by the government civil unions (including straight people), or call all of them civil marriages. same name, same legal bounds. Let the religious folk do their ceremonies and make religious marriages for whom they wish.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Here we go:
quote:"1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
"(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
"(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
"2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
"In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.
"This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.
Posted by Banna_Oj (Member # 6207) on :
I'm actually in favor in principle of Geoff's second option, doing away with state sanctioned marriages completely.
Marriage as it stands now is *not* a requirement for children, much as some would like it to be. The government could give tax-credits for child dependents, but not for adult dependents (as is possible in a marriage). If two adults filing taxes, are both responsible for the child, they can each claim a half deduction, or one can claim all of it. It works that way with owning a house together married or not.
Of course this would totally mess up social security and adult dependent benefits and everything else like that and tick off lots of taxpayers that vote so it isn't going to happen. Though social security is already so messed up I don't know if it would make much of a difference.
AJ redundancy edit
[ February 15, 2004, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Banna_Oj ]
Posted by screechowl (Member # 2651) on :
mackillian, maybe some errors but not bad grammar. I always told my students that there was a big difference to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, I doubt it would even reduce the amount of them by half.
Considering legalizing increased them at least ten-fold, what's your basis for this?
quote:What it would do is make the only available procedure much less safe, and lead to the deaths of countless women.
Really. Countless, you say? If banning abortion did cut it by half, that would be about 800k in the U.S. each year. What percentage of these women would die? According to this, a pro-choice group, the death rate is 700 per 100,000 illegal abortions, including in lesser developed countries. So if it cut the number of abortions in half, there would be 5600 deaths caused by this a year. Tragic? Yes. A law that stops 5600 deaths a year is normally a good one.
quote:So is making abortion illegal really a "moral" thing to do? Just because it sounds good on paper?
However, this argument is only conclusive if the the "does abortion take a human life?" question is already settled. Clearly, no one would support 1.6 million deaths to save 5600. So while a question to be answered with compassion, it is not the dispositive question in the debate. And I doubt any pro-lifer holds that position because it "sounds good on paper."
At least pretend to understand the other side's argument before dismissing it cavalierly.
Dagonee
[ February 15, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:And a final note (which also addresses Bob's point that government should stay out of the way) maybe the best solution is to completely remove state-sanctioned marriage from the books, and let it be a solely religious arrangement.
I think there's a great argument in favor of this position, Geoff. And basically, what it would mean is that we remove all government-sanctioned benefits of being married as well -- or rather first and foremost. In essence, we give those benefits based on private civil relationships established by legal means. For example, if a child wants to ensure that his/her parents (for whom he/she provides sole suppport) are cared for in case of death of their primary caregiver, that person would have the legal right to name them on his/her insurance policy.
Got a friend you want to provide for? Same deal.
You want to make sure that if you are unconscious in the hospital they let your spouse visit you, then you should have that fact filed with the state/county in which you reside.
All kinds of great things would come from government basically staying out of marriage altogether.
EDIT -- I was writing while AJ posted that similar and excellent answer.
quote: In a hundred years, we'll see whose descendants come out the healthiest
This part of your post doesn't link well with the above.
For example, not every person who is married today would be married if they had to do it via a religious ceremony as you are proposing. Yet I'm fairly certain you would not be so bold as to assert that irreligious people aren't likely to raise healthy offspring.
So...I'm not sure what you're trying to really get at here. A challenge to the non-religious people to see how well they can raise kids without God? or A challenge to religions to ensure that marriage and child-rearing have greater meaning for those who belong to their particular faith.
[ February 15, 2004, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geoffrey -- simply put, allowing or not allowing homosexual marriage (or an exact facsimile thereof) can only have a positive effect on the ability of the human population to survive and thrive. Those people who would participate have already almost entirely separated themselves from the possibility of heterosexual marriage (some bisexual people excluded), so its hardly going to harm the ability of heterosexual people to provide stable environments for children, and having it does increase the overall stable number of environments for children (such as adoptees, or children by artificial insemination in the case of lesbians sometimes).
Personally, I do think government should get out of the marriage business. Legally recognized pair relationships should be called civil unions or similar as far as the law is concerned. And everyone can get married or whatever as they and the wishes of their church are concerned.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Edited post away. Too inflammatory and probably not relevant.
[ February 15, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Storm, it's not that I have no choice. It's just that God is perfect. If he said it, it's true. Good enough for me. But again, just because I don't agree with homosexuality does not mean I've made up my mind on the marriage part. After all, religion and government and somewhat seperate. The question is where do you draw the line? Which morals are good for everyone and which are only good within the church? It's a delicate question.
Again, I would like to see more studies done on the nature of homosexuality. If female homosexuality can be influenced by fads, as I have seen reported, is it healthy for girls to grow up in a culture where homosexuality is regarded as normal? As more girls experiment because everyone else is doing it, it stands to reason it will become so influential homosexuality will be not just accepted but expected. Are we willing to go that far? It should at least be considered.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see how you can equate most of the pro gay marriage people who have chosen to believe gay marriage is o.k.
You need to be careful how you categorize people - I am in favor of allowing civil homosexual marriage. However, I still think homosexual actions are sinful, so in that respect I guess you could say I don't think "gay marriage is o.k." It's just I don't think the "wrongness" rises to the level of requiring outlawing it (or denying the civil benefits to couples).
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
edit:probably not relevant.
[ February 15, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Storm, it's not that I have no choice. It's just that God is perfect. If he said it, it's true. Good enough for me
Men wrote the Bible, or at least had a hand in it. None of us really sure WHAT God said. We believe certain things are true and come from God because of our faith.
Bottom line, I'm not able to, in good conscience, deny someone a shot at the same rights and priveleges I have because of Scripture -- the one I believe in or anyone elses.
It sounds as if you are at least open to the possibility of gay marriage or civil union and that's a good thing. To me, it means that your faith (including faith that homosexuality is a sin) hasn't caused you to deny other Americans equal rights.
To all out there who hold this position, I honor you. I, like many others, see the Religious Wrong battling this issue and raising it to the level of a Constitutional Amendment for purposes completely out of whack with the ideals we have all agreed to live under as Americans.
...
Now...about girls and fads...or kids and fads, whatever. I've seen these concerns come up with every generation I've been alive to observe. And you know what? Fads are short-lived. If someone is truly homosexual, they'll be homosexual. If someone is heterosexual, they'll be heterosexual. Frankly, I think if we pass laws affecting the happiness of contributing adults in America based on the fears of influencs on children, we are doing the adults major harm based on a fear, not a truth.
And the call to "study" things has, in many instances, been a smokescreen meaning "SLOW THINGS DOWN 'CUZ I'M NOT READY FOR IT." I'm not accusing anyone here of this attitude, but frankly, if you were in the position of a loving gay couple in America, would you want to wait until everyone was "comfortable?" Or until everyone had time to study the effects of your relationship on possible future children?
Nope.
I say, if there are societal influences that you don't care for and you worry about them affecting your children, find something else for your children to do. I know, at some point you have to explain "why's that man kissing that other man mommy?" to the kiddies, but that's not the same as having your children learn that you think being a homosexual is "OKAY" or that society has finally decided not to get so darn worked about it. You get to tell them whatever you want. Heck most kids would go "yuck" anyway when they see ANYONE kissing. The ones that don't (regardless of who is doing the kissing) should be under fairly tight parental supervision anyway (assuming they'll still listen to parents at that point).
I'm not advocating a homosexual lifestyle for your children, by the way. I'm just saying that worrying about the effect on future children as opposed the unfairness towards ACTUAL PEOPLE, is wrong. It's wrong for Americans to think that way.
It may be right for religious folk, or ethicists, or incipient parents to think that way. But it isn't America.
Or rather, it sadly IS America's history on these types of issues. We always have to make progress at the expense of people who want to slow things down "for the children."
I'd rather not run roughshod over such concerns. But they are and should be secondary. Do we tolerate unfairness because some as yet unborn child might have to learn a deeper message than "X is wrong?"
Heck, we don't seem to have a big problem with explaining that alcohol is a drug, but it's a LEGAL drug. Or Ken Lay is a bad man who ruined the lives of thousands of people, but we're executing a slow-witted teenager for a crime everyone says was just a horrible mistake.
All I'm saying, for the umpteenth time, is that there are bigger things to worry about. And if we're going to spend money studying things, let's begin with studying what happens to victims of child abuse to maybe stop the cycle there. Or let's spend it on figuring out what we can do to ensure that our educational system is the best in the world -- I mean, shouldn't the world's strongest economy be able to afford te best in education?
Oh well, I feel I've come off as overly critical here. But I'm not trying to be. It's just that I get impatient with the idea that things that can and should be fixed now can just wait. We know it's not right. Let's fix it. And more importantly, let's tell our legislators to fix it.
I mean, all here realize, don't you, that a Constitutional Amendment is about to be drafted that will extend this wrong into the future and make it HARDER to fix the problem? Surely people see that our leaders are about to go in the WRONG direction unless we let them know we want something else. Something better? Something fair?
[soapbox] The time to act on this is NOW folks. Not when there are studies or when everyone is comfortable.
So please, do the right thing. Find out who your Senators and Congressmen are and write to them to express your opposition to a Constititutional Amendment. Tell them that fairness is more important than fear.
Even if you hate the idea of homosexuality with every fiber of your being, you know the right thing to do in this case. Stop them from even drafting this amendment.
[/soapbox]
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
wow, this is turning into a debate like format.
So....
I would like to thank everyone for being here today, and to jump straight into the flow
In response to Geoffs first point, I would like to point out that people aren't trying to put new structures of society in place-but rather to allow the current structures to apply to everyone.
to your second point, you have yet to show how allowing homosexuals to marry would hurt the ability of the American people to thrive
to your third point, homosexual relationships are usually monogamous, so why should we ban those?
And finally, in response to your last and unnumbered point, about how society needs to respect marraige more, wouldn't it make sense to think that couples who want marraige so much they're willing to put up with all sorts of crap and fight to get it would go a long way toward restoring the value of marraige?
Thank you all again, and I urge you to vote for the affirmative side
(edited to add Bob)
[ February 15, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Bob, that was amazing. Consider publishing it?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Before I begin responses, I'd like to point out to everyone who doesn't know that the Washington Times is owned by the same people that own Fox News.
You're going to need a dump truck of salt.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I'll look up more studies in academic journals. But I'm running late right now. Will post later.
Not that anyone will pay attention to it. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Not to say marriage isn't in a pitiful state just because of heterosexuals - it is. But, legalizing homosexual unions is certainly not going to do anything toward improving the state of marriage, not if these stats are even close to being true. As well as information later in the same article, that civil-union homosexual couples in VT have a much lower rate of monogamy that their married, heterosexual counterparts. So, even in a state where they are afforded the legitimacy of civil union, their relationship are not as stable as that of heterosexuals.
This is not about protecting or improving marriage in America. It's about fairness to a group of contributing citizens.
As soon as the government decides that there will be civil penalties for failed marriages lasting less than the average, these statistics will matter. Until then, it doesn't matter if gay marriages last only slightly longer than Britney's latest publicity stunt, um, er., nuptuals.
I realize you were responding to someone else's post about gay monogamy, but it's irrelevant no matter what.
What this issue is ENTIRELY about is:
1) loving couples wanting some form of sanction that is currently denied them.
2) Rights of inheritance and medical coverage.
3) Both responsible adults being listed on a child's birth certificate or, more importantly, on official documents giving them simple basic rights to guide their own child's upbringing. Or heck, even allowing them to adopt each other's children to make the child/parent 0relationship legal for various civil purposes like enrollment, healthcare, picking the kid up from little league, etc.
It's mostly cutting through the bureaucratic BS that married people don't have to go through, but committed gay couples do.
Sure, it'd be nice if theere were "acceptance" along with it, but basically at this point, I think most gay couples would be satisfied with grudging acknowledgement and the same rights as other people.
Oh well...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Belle, if those stats are true, whey do you think the 'infidelity' is that high? Nature or nurture? If nurture, it can be overcome and is non-relevant?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Belle -- Regardless of whether or not those statistics are true, I certainly fail to see marriage/civil unions adding to any promiscuity by homosexuality, and in fact consider it likely to detract from promiscuity. Seems like that would be a good result, from an areligious viewpoint and also from a religious viewpoint.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Belle, the problem is you expect us to only listen to you. If you come in and post a comment, expect people to comment on it just as you were commenting on someone else.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Belle, quit overreacting. I haven't dismissed the report, only earmarked it as from a notoriously unreliable source.
By the way, if it were from a reputable source like the Washington Post, I'd be less suspicious. But it's from the Washington Times, which is nothing like the Post -- rather like comparing the Star with the New York Times.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Um. I didn't dismiss it and you ignored my question? Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
what I would like to know is how long, on average heterosexual couples stay together including dating couples. Then we could have a good basis of comparison with Belle's statistics, since those statistics will obviously be including all dating gay men.
And Belle, if you don't want to participate in the thread, don't post, since everyone knows that if you post, you're going to get responses-as you SHOULD in a thread, since people will want more information. If they didn't respond, they wouldn't really be showing your post any sort of respect.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Just wanted to point out that support for the amendment issue is almost exactly evenly split. Slightly more oppose gay marriage. Thought I'd mention this in case certain sources started talking about what 'real' Americans believed.
Since you're painting a newspaper with a rather broad brush, you might want to check your facts.
Fox News is owned by Murdoch’s News Corp. The Washington Times is owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's News World Communications.
Now, I haven't found anything that said one bought the other since 2000 (the latest I could confirm that they were still separate entities), I think I would have found something considering how many liberal blogs complaining about one or the other (or both) without documenting common ownership.
Dagonee
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Wow, I hadn't known it was owned by Moon. There are very few people out there who scare me. Moon is one of them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree. He's a scary, scary man.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
AvidReader:
quote: If female homosexuality can be influenced by fads, as I have seen reported, is it healthy for girls to grow up in a culture where homosexuality is regarded as normal?
How would this set aside this type of sexuality from any other sort of sexuality? (That is, why is this relevant?)
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
As an Evangelical Christian let me try and explain it from our point of view. Admittidly the primary opposition to the homosexual marriage movement comes from evangelical Christians. The reason is not that we want to limit the civil rights of homosexuals, nor is it that we want to hunt them down and root them out of existence. To an evangelical Christian marriage is a symbol of God and his people. It is a divine blessing.
The Church want's to preservet that sanctity. It is not an attack on homosexual rights.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
So don't have gay marriages in your church.
I don't see how that means the government shouldn't recognize them, since a civil union type ceremony isn't the same as a wedding in a church with a minister.
[ February 15, 2004, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
cause haven't you heard?
Religion's more important than government!
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Ryan, its one thing what you believe as a matter of religion. However, when you let that religion dictate what should be allowed and what should not LEGALLY you are attacking the rights of all people who disagree with that religious teaching, because you have no reason other than your religion to believe it is wrong.
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: by Ryan Hart
As an Evangelical Christian let me try and explain it from our point of view. Admittidly the primary opposition to the homosexual marriage movement comes from evangelical Christians. The reason is not that we want to limit the civil rights of homosexuals, nor is it that we want to hunt them down and root them out of existence. To an evangelical Christian marriage is a symbol of God and his people. It is a divine blessing.
The Church want's to preservet that sanctity. It is not an attack on homosexual rights.
Again I'll ask. Is the marriage of 2 Atheists keeping within the religious sanctity? Or 2 Agnostics? Or are they null and void? If thats the case, you better tell the government that those marriages aren't legal and those folks shouldn't be enjoying the same civil marriage rights as the "Christians". And was it morally right to outlaw Biracial marriages? Did that keep the 'sanctity' of marriage intact?
We are talking about the SECULAR definition of marriage. Plain and simple.
Is this in keeping with the 'sanctity' of marriage?
quote:Vegas 2 Wed If you are getting married in the near future and want a fun and exciting wedding day, why not consider Las Vegas, NV.
Las Vegas is "The Marriage Capital of the World", and it's become that for good reasons. The professional wedding vendors that are found here are of the highest quality. Considering what you get for the money, Las Vegas offers a better value than anywhere else in the U.S.A., or even the World!
With over 200 wedding chapels located through out the Las Vegas, you can have your choice of wedding services ranging from the traditional wedding to the most wild and crazy Drive-through chapels. Elvis himself has been known to make an appearance as the best man or the minister at some weddings.
Approximately 100,000 marriage licenses are issued annually in Las Vegas. Valentine's Day and New Year's Day are the most popular days to be married here.
Please take our invitation to celebrate your wedding day in Las Vegas and start making your plans today!
In order to have a legal marriage, a ceremony must be performed in the State of Nevada within one year from date of issuance of the marriage license by any person licensed or authorized to perform ceremonies in Nevada. The ceremony may be performed in any Wedding Chapel, Church or the Civil Marriage Commissioner's Office. These marriages are recognized throughout the world.
Don't tell me THIS is maintaining the 'sanctity' of marriage.
The sanctity arguement doesn't wash. I'm sorry. Now I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs. But when you argue 'sanctity' and I look around here in Arkansas, as backwoods as it can be and find places like those in Vegas, I gotta wonder.
EDIT: That pesky "N" was missing in Sanctity. I kept missing it heh
[ February 15, 2004, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: BookWyrm ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The Church want's to preservet that sanctity. It is not an attack on homosexual rights.
Ryan. I don't know what to say. I'm just sad.
I think you could do a great thing within the Evangelical Christian movement, if you all wanted to. That is, you could start writing to your Congressmen saying
quote:as people of faith and as Americans, we believe two things:
1) Marriage should be between a man and a woman, and,
2) Every American should have the same rights as every other American.
Therefore, Mr/Ms _______, the congregation of ________ church urges you to work on a tandem set of bills that should not be made law individually, but only in tandem. The first would make it a law that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The second -- making civil unions the only form of state-sanctioned bonding -- would make it possible for every person in America to join in a civil arrangement with anyone of their choosing for purposes of automatic inheritance, visitation rights in hospitals, and parental rights. This latter bill would, ideally, replace civil marriage with a legally binding contract between any two people.
In fact, to show how important we believe these rights to be, and how convinced we are of our stance on marriage, we urge you to pass the civil union bill first.
Signed:
members of the congregation of xxxx church.
Put up or shut up.
If you really believe that your church is not interested in denying the rights of homosexuals, send that letter or something like it.
Otherwise, you're just talking out of an unusual orifice.
I dare you to take that letter (or a similar one of your crafting) that would urge your representives to safeguard the rights of homosexuals as a pre-condition of you getting your way on the Marriage laws.
I double dare you.
I double dog dare you!!!!
[ February 15, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
I like it when Bob gets fired up.
Bob, you've got me ready to write a few letters, myself.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If you are going to do it, now's the time.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You know, I don't think this whole equality argument works very well.
Everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Furthermore, at the moment, neither heterosexual or homosexual has the right to marry a member of the same sex. This is equal.
The question is not about equal rights - it's about adding a right. Quesion #1 is "Should we all also have the right to marry members of the same sex, as we already all have the right to marry members of the opposite sex."
Then, once we've decided that, Quesion #2 is "Should we call this marriage too?"
But, to say we are denying homosexuals a right is just not accurate. What we are actually doing is giving everyone equal rights, but in the case of heterosexuals that right is much more useful than it is for homosexuals. At the same time, we are denying a right that is of no use to most heterosexuals, but would greatly benefit homosexuals. So, you can see how homosexuals feel shafted by the current allotment of rights.
I don't see any reason not to add the right to marry a member of the same sex to our list of rights. There are some arguments against homosexuality, but homosexuality exists whether or not we add marriage to the mix. Homosexual individuals already live with one another, and act as if they are married. I see no downside to formalizing it.
As for Quesion #2, I don't really care. However, if we are going to call it by a different name, I think we should offer both the same rights along with that name. Unless there's some good reason not to, which I don't think there is, marriage should carry no more special perks that civil unions do not - otherwise, we're just arbitrarily favoring marriages.
But again, to call this a matter of equal rights is to confuse the issue. Everyone already has equal rights to marriage. This is a matter of adding rights to make homosexual individuals happier.
[ February 16, 2004, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Furthermore, at the moment, neither heterosexual or homosexual has the right to marry a member of the same sex. This is equal.
Heh, man, I'm refraining from rejoining this thread until I feel up to addressing every post that deserves a response, but I have to comment on this. If laws existed that gave everyone the right to marry white wives, but none of any other race, is that equal? After all, everyone has the opportunity to marry a Southern white woman. Just because you may desire marriage with a black or Latina or Asian woman rather than a white woman doesn't mean there's any special legal privileges going on -- right? Everyone can still marry, just not to the people they love.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Thats semantics Tres.
I would say that heterosexuals have the right to marry people of the only gender they are naturally (perhaps genetically) attracted to.
Homosexuals don't have that right.
You make it seem like its a choice, when direct testimony from millions of homosexuals strongly suggests that it is NOT something they choose.
Its like it being illegal to write using your left hand. You could claim that this is still equal rights because everyone has the right to use their right hand. Left-handed people would disagree.
Edit: Yeah, what Lalo said. I have to say that of all the lame-ass justifications for not allowing gay marriage, this one has to be one of the ones that makes the least sense.
[ February 16, 2004, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
Bob, you totally rock. Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
After that last Bob post I just couldn't shake the image of 25 school kids saying, "OOOooooooooooohhhhh," in delight over the double dog dare based turn of events. You can never look a double dog dare in the eye and turn it aside , unless it involves a streetlight in the Christmas Story.
Seriously, Bob, you've just written some real rippers today, normally I bang my head against my desk in frustration reading these threads, but Bob has really eloquently argued the stand that I and quite a few others around here share, and made it possible to read this sort of thread w/o going completely bonkers w/frustration.
Thanks Bob.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:But, to say we are denying homosexuals a right is just not accurate. What we are actually doing is giving everyone equal rights, but in the case of heterosexuals that right is much more useful than it is for homosexuals.
Riiiiiiight: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Ok Bob, your on.
I have just mailed letters to Sue Myrick, John Edwards and Elizabeth Dole. These are my congresspeople.
This is what I sent
quote: In response to the recent issues of marriage liscenses to homosexual couples in California I urge you to take action. As a member of your district I believe my views are in concert with the general views of my region. I request that you support first any legislation giving homosexuals full rights under the law to civil unions. Everyone should be entitled to inheritance, hospital rights and parental rights. These unions should not be restricted to only homosexuals but to anyone. I ask this because no one should be Justice should be blind to race, gender, and orientation. Second I ask that you protect the sacrement of marriage. Please support any bills or ammendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman. Finally as a caveat, no organization or person should be compelled to preform a marriage or civil union ceremony.
Respectfully, Ryan Hart
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well done, Ryan.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If laws existed that gave everyone the right to marry white wives, but none of any other race, is that equal?
No - that would mean black women couldn't marry at all, while white women could.
Now, if a law existed that said you could only marry someone of the same race, that might be equal. It would be arbitrary and unhelpful to people who want to have interracial marriages, but it would probably be equal.
It's sort of like the right to an abortion. I'm male, so the right to have an abortion doesn't really help me at all. That doesn't mean it's unequally applied, and it doesn't mean I can demand some other similar right to balance it out.
quote:I would say that heterosexuals have the right to marry people of the only gender they are naturally (perhaps genetically) attracted to.
You might say that, but probably only in this particular issue to try and make the equality argument work. I'm pretty sure that's not what the authors of the law, or the voting public, had in mind when they created the law. Otherwise, they would not have specifically disallowed gay marriage in so many states, and would not have made claims like "marriage is between a man and a woman".
quote:I have to say that of all the lame-ass justifications for not allowing gay marriage, this one has to be one of the ones that makes the least sense.
It's not a justification for not allowing gay marriage, because as I said in the same post, I think we should allow it.
However, we should be fair and reasonable about the justifications for it - and the equality argument just doesn't hold much water, for the reasons I gave above. I'm not just going to buy into any argument that gives me the conclusion I want.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
We were talking with some friends last night.
Basically going "so what is going to happen now" with the San Fransisco situation.
We are assuming that someone is going to file suit somewhere. The only way the marriages can be anulled is if a judge overturns them. But you will have to find a judge in CA that is going to overturn this, in a blanket fashion. This is going to be hard to find to begin with, and then it is going to get appealed up to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal courts in the country. They will come down on the side of gay marriage at which point you can see it going to the Supreme Court.
We don't see Supreme Court touching this case with a ten foot pole for quite a while (like probably another 10 years) The only way they would get involved sooner, is if it becomes a giant reciprocity fight between the states. But those reciprocity laws are different types of laws than the "married or not married" issue.
If a constitutional ammendment did go through, they can't make it retroactive. So those gay couples who are already married stay married regardless, creating a bunch of 50something gay couples that are married and a bunch of 20 and 30somethings that aren't.
A constitutional ammendment of this variety, would likely get quashed in the Senate if it made it through the House, since the Senate isn't going to get the majority of votes it needs to pass a constitutional ammendment. If it does get that far, then the states have to ratify it. If enough states don't ratify it (which they probably wouldn't) then, like the women's equal rights ammendment it would die a long slow death due to statues of limitations.
So the odds of any sort of law getting passed at the federal level is extremely slim.
AJ
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Ryan, my respect for you just went up at least 100%.
I must admit I thought of you as a character, but I see I was wrong.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Tresopax, it's not so clear. The initial assumptions of the setup determine the answer every time.
Try piecing out why this is (or isn't) a problem in the following scenario [mind you, I'm not setting this up as an analogy, just as a thought experiment, and I'm interested in seeing where it goes, too]:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right.
Is there something wrong with this conclusion? Where does the wrongness come from, if it isn't there? Is it in the language (semantics), the logic, or both?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Well, if there is a problem, I'd say it's because you can't have a right to something and yet be prevented from using that right. That's a matter of the meaning of the concept of a right.
However, in the following case, I think there is no problem:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1. The fact that members of Group B don't want to walk away from Building 1 (and instead want to walk away from Building 2) is irrelevant, as they could walk away from Building 1 if they wanted to. They still have the right.
The situation changes when we are talking about a right we don't want to use, rather than a right we can't use - and the former is what's going on in this thread.
[ February 16, 2004, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
On a side note, they're using MY shackles and I'd like them back.
And I'd like to see Tres answer this question. It seems he counters every and all arguments using sematics.
I find it particularly annoying. The ACTION, however, not the person.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I have the right to demonstrate against the Bush administration. However my chice not to excercise that right does not mean I should recieve a new right of equal magnitude.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
What?
They COULD use it if the state didn't shackle the constitution with an unconstitutional law.
That just didn't make sense, Tres.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Okay, seriously, this whole sematic thing is crap.
Racially. If a black person wanted to marry the white person he loved, but the law didn't allow it because it doesn't allow interracial marriage. The constitution states that all are equal. However, somehow one race isn't equal to another because they are negated the freedom to choose to marry whom they love.
And we say what? "Your rights aren't being violated, you just aren't choosing to exercise your right in the proper manner."
That doesn't make sense. The right is a civil marriage of one person to another whom they love. They cannot fully exercise that right when the choices are restricted--saying that one love is not equal to another.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Actually love isn't even necessary. Bare-faced greed is ok.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The right is a civil marriage of one person to another whom they love.
I'm in favor of allowing civil unions. But you're using semantics as much as Tresopax is by defining the right in such a way as to presuppose your desired end.
People have the right to "marry." The traditional understanding of the word "marry" has been the joining of a man and a woman into a special relationship. You're establishing the right by redefining the word, which is a semantic argument.
Doesn't make the argument any less compelling. But it's still semantic.
I think the issue is much better categorized as a "fairness" issue in moral terms, and an "equal protection" issue (rather than equality issue) in legal terms.
It's also important to note the issues underlying semantic issues. Adovcates for homosexual marriage deny they are redefining the institution of marriage, a conclusion contrary to the every-day understanding of the term of most Americans. When trying to change wide-held beliefs, it is important to state why the new belief is in accord with more fundamental beliefs held by the people being convinced.
In this case, the argument is starting out with a perceived lie. "We're not trying to change marriage" seems like a lie when compared to the implicit understanding of "husband/wife" at the root of most people's conception of marriage.
That's why I come to this issue by making clear distinctions between the civil benefits of legally sanctioned relationships between two adults and the actual institution of marriage. In many ways this is also a semantic argument, but it nicely reconciles all my fundamental beliefs of equal protection and the sanctity of marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Hey, Tres, no fair mixing in new hypotheticals! I promise to play with yours later, if you play with mine now.
quote:Well, if there is a problem, I'd say it's because you can't have a right to something and yet be prevented from using that right. That's a matter of the meaning of the concept of a right.
So, the problem with my hypothetical as first stated is that the members of Group B cannot be said to have that right, because they cannot exercise it, correct?
And so one could modify the hypothetical as follows:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't shackled to the floor. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right to walk away if they weren't shackled.
Any problems?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ryan,
This could be the start of a beautiful friendship. That was about the best letter I've ever read.
Now, take it to your church. When you hear people saying "I don't want to hurt gays, just protect marriage..." give them a copy of your letter and ask them to send it to their representatives too.
I'm so impressed.
Hey, Dagonee, have you written your letter yet? We need more!
Belle? Could you add your letter to the mix? Would your church sign on to something like this?
And how about the rest of the people here who are just angry and frustrated. Let's DO something before Congress goes off and remakes this issue into something we don't want.
Imagine if just 50 people a day wrote to their House and Senate representative just to say: Don't do one without the other. Make it fair to everyone.
Just imagine.
Tell a friend.
Heck, tell an enemy.
Wouldn't it be great if for once someone got rights in America without having to stage a bunch of protests? Can't we just recognize the problem and fix it?
I say it's time for America to grow up. And this is a great opportunity to show how we've gotten past our divisiveness over every issue.
If we can do this one, I bet you would could solve a lot of other issues too.
So write, people!
Write now!!!!!!!!
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't shackled to the floor. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right to walk away if they weren't shackled.
Any problems?
No, that one seems fine. That one is a bizarre sort of right to have though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I wrote last year to my state representatives.
When I write to my Congressman and Senators, the letter will be largely states' rights plus asking them not to add to the legacy of shame contained in the "importation of people" and "three-fifths of a person" clauses of the Constitution by adopting the first rights-limiting amendment since prohibition.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dagonee, sounds good to me. That's a far more eloquent and informed version of what I wrote to TX Senator Cornyn -- the one who's been tapped to write the bill.
Posted by MEC (Member # 2968) on :
I could care less if gays marry, but I was wondering, if gays can marry what will keep polygamy from being legal.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I don't see the legal connection beyond "extending a right, why not extend it further?"
I also don't see the problem with polygamy. I see a problem with divying up legal rights, but if a nice lawyer writes up a very thorough legal script defining the rights of adults in a multiple-partner civil union, then good. Lets assume those rights are relatively equal in monetary value and useful value. Then great. Polygamy should be legal.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:No, that one seems fine. That one is a bizarre sort of right to have though.
Agreed, as it isn't the sort of right which is meaningful. But one could still properly say, "I don't see why people say this is discrimination, since this right [i.e., to walk away if not shackled] is applied to everyone equally." Correct?
quote:When I write to my Congressman and Senators, the letter will be largely states' rights plus asking them not to add to the legacy of shame contained in the "importation of people" and "three-fifths of a person" clauses of the Constitution by adopting the first rights-limiting amendment since prohibition.
Wow, Dagonee. That rocks.
[ February 16, 2004, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I see a problem with divying up legal rights, but if a nice lawyer writes up a very thorough legal script defining the rights of adults in a multiple-partner civil union, then good.
I see huge problems with this - more than half the legal use of marriage is the convenience factor. Who consents to medical care if I can't? My spouse.
If "spouse" were "spouses," then it would have to be "the spouse I've designated to do so." Which means I'd have to designate someone, which means marriage provided no legal convenience in this scenario. This can be repeated with most questions in which "my spouse" would be the default legal answer.
Interesting historical fact: Did you know bigamy was one of the only strict-liability crimes punishable by death under English common law? No excuse could save you, although an excuse might get you a pardon.
Dagonee
[ February 16, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Dagonee: I think it's really hard, or really unlikely to draw up a suitable legal formula for polygamy. But I don't think it's impossible.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I also don't see how allowing civil unions for homosexual couples automatically leads to polygamy.
Like I said...just don't have them in your church, then. There you go. Your religion isn't involved; it's only the government. Hooray.
Posted by Argèn†~ (Member # 4528) on :
quote:I could care less if gays marry, but I was wondering, if gays can marry what will keep polygamy from being legal.
And the usual staw man rears its ugly head.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Dagonee, I'm a little puzzled. Why exactly is it such a disgrace to limit rights via an amendment? Not every imaginable right really ought to be available to people.
To avoid turning this into the usual "right to murder" circus, try this: suppose that studies indicated that 75% of voters between 18 and 21 claimed to vote "for whoever I felt like at the time" and an additional 10% "for someone at random". In addition, 64% agreed that "I made a mistake to vote for the candidate I did". Would it be a disgrace to amend the Constitution and raise the voting age back to 21, thus limiting rights? (I don't really think 18--21-year-olds are that irresponsible, but it's not beyond belief.)
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Maccabeus- That would be imprudent because that is a matter of equal rights. If a person can be forced to fight and die for his country in a war he doesn't support then he should be able to choose the person who does or does not allow that to happen.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Even if, by his own admission, he didn't have a clue what he was doing when he voted? (Which, again, I am not saying is the case.)
All I'm saying is that at least one logical reason to limit existing rights would be if it turned out that the people whom they had been given to turned out not to be adequately qualified to exercise them.
[ February 16, 2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
It's the same situation when you have defense attorneys defending a man they know is guilty. You aren't fighting for that man so much as you are for the system.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
*sniffles*
A homosexuality thread where progress was actually made.
I'm so happy .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Mac,
The Constitution is the founding document of our country. As such, it does two things:
1) It defines the structure of the federal government and enumerates the powers granted to each branch.
2) It places limits on the actions that the federal government and/or the state government can take. When these limits are aimed at protecting individuals, we call them rights.
The Constitution is designed to limit actions of government, not people. Neither the state nor the federal government may restrict the free exercise of religion, or limit free speech, or deprive people of life, liberty (as in physical restraint), or property without due process of law. There are other restrictions on government actions as well.
But the 18th Amendment is the only place in the Constitution that restricts the actions of individuals (namely the the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors).
Of course the government is given the power to restrict lots of individual actions. It can ban prostitution, drug use, and states could absolutely ban alcohol if they wanted to. The key feature of all this is that the political branches (those responsible directly to the people) have to take some action for these restrictions to occur. And the same branches can undo their own actions if such restrictions are found to be ill-conceived.
Why is it set up this way? Because the Constitution is a constraint on both the current and future generations, both of the people and the government. It is hard to amend, purposefully so. Such constraints need to be taken very seriously, and should be reserved for preserving liberty, not taking it.
The Constitution is a beautiful document. It sets up horizontal checks and balances between three branches of federal government and vertical checks and balances between the federal and the state governments. Federal law is treated as superior to state law, but is limited in the areas in which it may speak. And both states and the federal government are prevented from intruding on some core sphere governed by each individual.
An amendment to say, "Neither the state nor federal government may grant a particular right to a particular type of people" is ugly, both philosophically and aesthetically. It offends my political scientist's soul that one of the crowning achievements in governance should be so marred.
The beauty of the Constitution and how it's interpreted is that it acts as a ratchet - the individual liberty it enshrines expands much more easily than it contracts. This is why the ugliness integrated in its beginnings has been slowly excised. (Incidentally, it's also why I don't want the text amended to remove the 3/5 clause or the importation of people clause - we need the reminder of where we've come from.) Only once has war been required to correct one of its flaws. Despite all the ugliness in our history, the Constitution has survived multiple crises and emerged better for it each time.
It's an instrument that allows us to strive to be better than we are, to take our gains in respect and dignity as we make them, and to keep those gains even when our human nature tries to make us backslide.
Dagonee
[ February 16, 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Dagonee, I can see the logic of what you are suggesting. In fact, you have largely convinced me.
One hole remains, however, and that is the power of the Supreme Court. With rare exceptions, the only way to check the effects of a bad ruling is the amendment process. We can argue either way on what specific rulings might be bad--a few I cannot imagine more than a few remnant groups arguing are good (Dred Scott being the classic, if cliche, example)--but clearly it is possible that some Court will one day make another disastrous ruling. If that ruling is one that expands rather than limits rights, how do you propose the matter be fixed? Or do you think that no conceivable ruling that expands rights can be that bad? (IMHO, a ruling that expands someone's rights often ends up limiting the rights of someone else that a court did not consider.)
I could wish that sometime early in our history, a president had begun the use of the power to pardon as a check on the power of the Court, but it is a little late for that. And, of course, the cure might have proven worse than the disease.
[ February 16, 2004, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Maccabeus ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In the case where people's rights are being upheld at the expense of other people's rights, then the amendment could be written to protect the "other people's" rights being infringed - so that scenario doesn't worry me too much. This is, of course, my hope for the abortion issue. A constitutional amendment to ban abortion would not be written to make abortion illegal but to empower Congress or state legislatures to pass legislation to protect certain rights of the unborn.
Of course, many people disagree with my interpretation of the issue. But the point is it can be couched in those terms and still pass the laugh test. I can't imagine how a "defense of marriage" amendment could be couched in terms of protecting rights.
Dagonee
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Agreed, as it isn't the sort of right which is meaningful. But one could still properly say, "I don't see why people say this is discrimination, since this right [i.e., to walk away if not shackled] is applied to everyone equally." Correct?
Well, in this case, equality is a tricky matter. After all, now the rule has limited who it applies to - only people not shackled. Some statements of this form are going to be unequal, like "Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't black." The deciding factor, I think, is whether the limitation has been arbitrarily added by the government (as in the example with blacks), or whether it follows reasonably from the right itself. For instance, it follows from the right to leave Building 1 that people shackled to the ground naturally won't be able to have that right. You might say this is unfair of nature for having these people shackled, but unless it was the government who kept them shackled, the government cannot be blamed for not being able to give them the right that others have. It is simply not practical given the constraints those people have. Whereas, if the rule limited blacks from leaving the building, the government is simply choosing to do this without having to, and thus is responsible for the inequality.
So, to answer your question, at least as far as the government is concerned, this right is being given equally and discrimination is not occuring. You might say God or Nature or whoever caused these certain people to be shackled are disrciminating against them, but I think we are talking about the government's responsibilities in these examples, no?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If polygamy became legal, what would be the great harm in that? I mean, just because the majority of people think it a strange arrangement, the only part of modern polygamy that are truly worrisome in terms of a state's interest in the issue would be marriage of underage people (females).
Insurers might have a problem with it -- imagine taking out a family policy to cover half a dozen adults and all their children. But frankly even that seems like there'd be a way to work around it.
And if they were entering into a civil union, does it really matter how many people are in the corporation?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'd draw the line at people marrying animals or inanimate objects, though.
Or politicians.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
No Posable Man as my second husband?
(BTW, Dagonee, I missed your entrance into Hatrack. You are a lively and enriching addition. )
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Yeah, I have to agree with CT. You're a rare creature, Dagonee -- I don't think I've ever "met" a conservative (aside from Geoff) that has the knack or ability for eloquent, reasonable discussion that you do. I hope you stick around to help show me if I'm ever wrong. It hasn't happened yet, but I'm bound to be wrong someday, if only to give the law of averages meaning.
[edited to insert Geoff; there are so few of your breed, how can I forget to include the other one?]
[ February 16, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Lalo ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Dagonee, now that you are a Hatracker (or Jatrequero, to be more exact), we are sworn to defend you against vile outsiders. Well, after the official ceremonies take place. But don't worry about that -- you don't have to do anything but show up.
Lalo, we're on a roll lately. sndrake, Dagonee, Brinestone, Farmgirl, lots of neat folk being folded into the pack. Mega-good Hatrack vibes out there.
[ February 16, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
CT...LOL.
I give that comment 3 Ashcrofts.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I swear to God I'm more eloquent in real life. However (I swear this is true) the muscles in my hands didn't form well so my hands cramp up if I write/type too long.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
Wow, a homosexuality thread with people complimenting people. And meaning it. Bonus points for everyone involved
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Actually, CT, Brinestone's been around longer than I have, but she lurks a lot and took a long break from Hatrack before she met me. So she only seems new.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But Lalo is one of a kind. You can feel the hugs and smilies even though I am holding them back.
quote: [edited to insert Geoff; there are so few of your breed, how can I forget to include the other one?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Now I haven't actually read the whole thread, but I have to say that I'm in agreement with Lalo (except about Gavin Newsom because I don't know anything about the man.). I don't have a problem with gay couples getting the tax breaks and and choice to promise to stay with each other and all the other marriage benefits ect. I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner, because San Francisco has one of the largest gay communities in the nation.
How could this hurt anybody? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)