That’s right! With all this back and forth and name calling clearly what was missing was Cousin Hobbes reasoned and informed position. And now here he is it to give it to you, aren’t you lucky!
Wow, if that wasn’t a credibility statement I don’t know what is!
Anyways, after such an arrogant statement I better back it up, eh? Or perhaps just hope everyone realized I was joking… or both.
I’ll get to the point, my ideal solution without reference to the fact that things like tax laws of the word “marriage” in them: any two people can get a civil union. I would completely redefine a civil union so that all it represents is the legal issues of two people who want to be companions. I wouldn’t limit to heterosexual couples, or even to couples in love. Two sisters who have lived together since they moved out of their parents house could get a civil union to make sure they have the legal power to do things for their sister. Any two people who asked for it and did not already have one (that’s valid) could get one.
I like this idea because I really don’t see how the government has the power to do anything that’s not strictly legal. Marriage is a sacred bond between two people, I really don’t see how the government should be involved with that in any way. If a couple wants to enter into those vows then they should do so, even now the governments not stopping them. If they want to be recognized by their community as being a couple getting a hotly contested marriage license is not going to do it. If you want people to recognize you as a couple do it by trying to explain rationally and well why you are couple, not by forcing it down their throats with legal changes they didn’t want. And certainly plenty of people are doing this, I’m not trying to say it’s an original idea but that it’s a good one.
I can see both sides getting mad at my solution, that’s what’s with all the asbestos. However, it is my opinion that the government has no place whatsoever in marriage bedsides those places in which the government is involved by definition. Tax rights, health care, security rights (the right to see medical charts and what not). And it seems to me that all these right apply just as well to any two people who spend significant time together.
Now this idea does have some flaws, like two random people getting a… whatever this would be called for a few days and canceling it, than doing it over and over with new people, when it’s convenient. And also, the laws already in existence that mention marriage specifically will have some issues, but I feel these could be overcome, and are worth overcoming to get the government out of something they never should’ve been involved with.
Fundamentally I just don’t think the government has any place in marriage, marriage is about promises and societal recognition, and the government can’t (or shouldn’t do) either. If a homosexual couple finds someone willing to marry them in whatever system it is that person is a member of, go them, if they don’t feel it’s necessary, then that’s fine, they can make promises to themselves just fine without anyone. And heterosexual couples that belong to Churches (or find Churches) willing to marry them, more power to them to. Once again, if they don’t feel it’s necessary, then that’s fine, they make their promises in private.
<--*Awaits flaming and/ doughnuts from his dorm floor*
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I went through this solution briefly and discarded it because I do think children deserve some protections in this society and their best interests are not served by chaos. I think monogamous but gay parents are better for a child than cheating but straight parents. But by the same bias, I think monogamous straight parents are better.
Adoption is a great thing, but children time and time again want to learn about their natural parents. With gay parents, there will always be at least one parent who is not the natural parent that the child will wonder about. Well, except for the child with the famous musician parents. I'm not saying these people's lives will be meaningless, but it will make them separate, and some people feel you can't be separate but equal.
But I guess it comes down to the fact that I don't believe gayness is genetic. That is, I don't think the science has proved it. I think it goes against the democratic principle that all men (and women) are created equal. And the fact that so many more men are gay than women is a puzzle.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not a bad idea, and I theoretically support it. Of course, its completely impossible to bring about currently, and as such its just so much intellectual jaw wagging. Injustice must be fought in reality, not in fantasy worlds.
This isn't a condemnation of the view; I really do support it. It is a condemnation of the idea that this view solves the problem, or is any kind of step towards its resolution.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That solution doesn't at all adress the issue of adoption, which is a whole can of worms I wont be personally opening. However, it is to me, the right solution, and I really don't see how it's infeasible. Or I do, in exact terms as I've stated, but I think it's a good goal to work towards.
How would I work towards it? I personally plan on just voting for whatever would move closest to that solution, and voting against what would move away. I am not going to go out and picket goverment buildings until it's accepted because I'm not terribly upset with the system now. It's close enough to my ideal system that I don't feel it worth it to go to all that trouble just to get it changed. If I were advising someone else who deeply cared about it I would say the first step would be to change peoples minds, not their laws.
Hobbes Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If the world were all consenting adults, I wouldn't care. But the world has quite a few children in it, who learn as much from what they see around them as they do from what they are deliberately taught. Gayness may be genetic, but I somehow predict it will become a much larger segement of the population as role models are available. Role models who swear that if there were any way to not be gay, trust them, they would not have chosen it.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Women are a lot more fluid than men in terms of sexuality And perhaps one reason why a lot of gays want to get married is for respectability? To not be seen as promiscuous just running around for the sake of sex and not companionship?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Will anyone actually read this?
Because it all seems to get ignored by the conservative camp.
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.
Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :
I have to believe that anyone who doesn't support Hobbes's approach is just playing politics. You can't legislate people's approach to what is fundamentally a religious institution.
Adoption agencies should, and my uninformed impression is do, judge the stability and quality of the relationship of the parents, not its sanctity under state or God.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
I'd agree with this "no government a part of it" union, if it weren't for the fact that a heterosexual married couple is treated differently than a heterosexual couple who are living together, even under common law. The fact that a heterosexual married couple has rights as a single entity that two people outside of that union do not necessarily have, especially with regard to post-mortem estate, restitutions, and so on. Conversely, this single entity is subject to a lien which affects both individuals in the union, moreso than just cosigning or common-law. Still, in every concievable way, a married heterosexual couple is afforded greater recognition on just about every level than even a heterosexual unmarried couple.
Make that unmarried couple homosexual, and the recognition as far as rights dwindles dramatically.
So, Hobbes, if government, insurance, and other agencies were to stop recognizing married couples as a single fiscal entity at the same time your fantasy scenario took place, then it would be closer to being equal and fitting. However, you intentionally ignore this. Why? It's not just the government that is making fiscal survival more lenient on heterosexual married couples, so just taking government out of it is not a solution.
This is just like the situation where white people like to say, "if minorities stopped pointing out their ethnic differences and government stopped interfering, then people could live together equally and peacefully." In both Hobbes' hypothetical and the example I just described, this means the majority groups—heterosexuals in Hobbes' scenario and whites in my example—don't have to give a damn thing up, while the minority group—meaning homosexuals in Hobbes' example and ethnic minorities in mine—have to give up much.
That's really damn easy to call a solution when you're the one standing on top, and a whole lot harder to swallow when your rights are being restricted.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
And as far as I'm concerned, God has no part of what marriage rights are in the United States of America, and even if you believe God does, you have no right under the Constitution of the United States to make me abide by it.
If your God doesn't allow equal rights, then your God can kiss my patootie.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Mack, I just read your article and that was a really great post! I just love posts that are well written and informed!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
John L, you rock those are excellent points.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
What I was saying John was that all legal ramifications of marriage, all goverment interaction is exactly as I described. I don't care what the goverment says about my martial status, just about my legal status for things like taxes. It's what I think about my martial status (and what my Church thinks), take the goverment out of everything, not just homosexual unions.
Mack, sorry, I'm afraid I'm tired so I skimmed your post since I'm not really up to responding to things about the mayor of SF in this thread. I wasn't really talking about him at all, just general martial issues.
Hobbes Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Hobbes, you should go back and read it some time. It is separated into several sections, only the first of which concerns the SF mayor.
I asked her to reproduce it here because of the "concern" that gay parents necessarily beget/raise gay children.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hobbes -- Leto's point in the first part was more that marriage is ingrained as a benefiting institution in many (secular) parts of society other than government. For instance, homosexuals in a civil union do not necessarily get lower car insurance rates but homosexuals in a marriage almost certainly would.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
A pertinent quote:
quote:"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Fugu, I mean that the word marriage is stricken from the goverment. That's what I'm trying to convey, there is now two people getting together in this legal bond and then heterosexual marriage. I mean just the former, there is no marriage in the goverment. ... I'm ridiculously tired to try and convey this, if you're still confused, sorry, I think in my current state this is the best I can do.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I will Sun, when I'm not so tired. In fact, why am I posting now? I should be in bed. Hmmm, I should work on that.
Only since I'm up I am going to say two things about the mayor. I think he was a civil resistor most likely. But that doesn't make him right (or wrong). Second is, as I understand it he broke the law. Didn't California pass a law that said marriage was "man and women"? If so then the mayor should be ejected because he was breaking the law pure and simple. A civil resistor has to face the consequences of their actions or the whole point is lost. I know, I should read Mack's post. I love you Mack and you know it, I'm not disregarding your post forever, I promise! Forgive me?
Hobbes
[ February 21, 2004, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Hobbes, as I said in my post, it isn't just the government who follows this criteria for the word marriage.
And if the word "marriage" were still used by any religious body after it was stricken from government use, I would hold that religious body in severe contempt (for its hypocrisy). It's like ideological indian-giving.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
John, then it's not really a legal issue is it? It's company specific, so then people should try and deal with the companies.
I'm confused on your other part though. I would take out marriage as a word because it's about sacred vows, not about legal rights. Thus the goverment shouldn't have its hands in it. Churchs seem pretty ideal to have their hands in it though.
Hobbes Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Breaking a law that's unconstitutional is a necessary part of getting it declared unconstitutional. In this case it probably won't be upheld, but in a place like New Mexico (where marriage certificates are not gender specific) it might work.
[ February 21, 2004, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well I'm not going to comment on constitutionality or the morality of the choice itself (I don't know if anyone's noticed, but I have not once stated my opinoin on the morality of homosexuality here once), but right or not, when you break the law you should pay for it. Being a civil resitor is all about accepting the consequences of your actions.
Hobbes Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I really hope that at some point this debate gets off the whole bereavement leave/car insurance/tax benefit tack. It's insulting to everyone involved. That isn't what marriage is about, on either side of the debate.
John L, that's right, equal, equal, equal, equal, equal, say it again, we didn't hear you, equal. Let's treat everyone the same by giving everyone exactly what they want all the time. Let's let polygamists in Colorado City marry as many women as they want, let's let NAMBLA marry eleven-year-olds, let's let cats and dogs live together, let's let vampires marry hemophiliacs, and everyone will be happy. Because it is just not FAIR that someone should feel a desire and not get to fulfill it, when other people get to fulfill their desires. It's not FAIR! WAAA!
All right, I'm being snarky and irresponsible and going way further than my real position.
I'm mostly just annoyed, John, that you said my god could kiss your patootie, and never mind the rich and complex doctrine and tradition you skipped right over to go for the playground insult. My god doesn't promote hatred or bigotry, but my religion does believe that the marriage of the two human genders is more than a mere biological imperative. It's an earthly reflection of a much larger eternal truth, and my god doesn't teach us to lie, to tell people that it doesn't matter whom or what you marry. According to my faith, it is not just an arbitrary, earthly decision. It has much larger meanings and consequences, and while you may feel totally free to insult Him and us for that, we can't just flip-flop on basic truths according to the whims of the decade we live in. This is not some hate-filled emotional reaction to seeing someone different. It isn't a homophobic "disgust" reaction to gay sex. It's an honest appraisal of a difficult situation.
We believe that gays are children of God just like anyone is, and have the same right to pursue happiness in any way they can. But believing that doesn't make gay marriage a part of the eternal reality any more than it makes gay sex a viable way to produce offspring. There are certain limits to how far a homosexual relationship can go, both in the natural world, and in the eternal world, and if you have any concept of what it means to have faith, you know that there is nothing we can do about it, except to show tolerance and love, and go as far as we can to bring other people joy. That's what I try very hard to do, every day.
But striving to bring other people joy does not always mean reflexively and thoughtlessly giving them everything they ask for. I have to draw the line here. Bigendered marriage is a vitally important part of my faith, and while that may be a feeling largely restricted to my own people, it's not something we can shoo away for your convenience either. If we're outvoted, we'll be outvoted, and we'll continue to live alongside our fellow people in peace. But we aren't going to rewrite eternity just to please you.
Can you possibly see this as something other than petty bigotry? Must you paint all of your opponents with the same brush? I'm disgusted at the behavior of many of the opponents of gay marriage, and it terrifies me sometimes to think what the world would be like if they ran it. I don't want that world any more than you do.
Politically, I'm moderate on this issue. I can see both sides, and I admire people like Hobbes who try to seek honest compromises, rather than simply, blindly attacking their opposition. I advocate caution and the rule of law, and shy away from picking one solution over another until we know more.
But when you drag religion into it, I have to stand up for the fact that what I believe is not hate or bigotry, the way you portray it. There is nothing bigoted in recognizing that scientifically, it takes a man and a woman to produce human offspring. Therefore, it is similarly non-bigoted to hold other beliefs, through faith, that the union of a man and a woman is a uniquely powerful thing different from any other human relationship.
If I were to personally twist my beliefs into hatred and mistreatment of others, that would be morally wrong. If I were to abandon them freely under social pressure, that would be weak and dishonest.
But when I simply seek to be honest about the truths of the universe as I see them, and when those truths are as completely benign and morally neutral as they are, it is very churlish of you to simply bat them away and hurl insults as though you knew something about them. You don't. So keep it to yourself and stick to politics.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Why does the ceremony have to be done in a church to call it a marriage? My parents have a marriage. They did not get married in church. A marriage is a union between two people who love each other. Why shouldn't the government be allowed to govern them? Religion doesn't have to enter into a marriage ceremony at all.
Hobbes, when you say that you would do away with government-operated marriage and replace it with civil unions which any two people could enter into and leave it to churches to do actual marriages. To me, this devalues my parents' marriage. They aren't just two people who want a list of certain legal rights. They chose to spend the rest of their lives together, to love each other in sickness and in health and so on. But they didn't include religion in that. That doesn't mean it's less worthy of the status of marriage.
It's like during the fight for civil rights when towns, instead of allowing African-Americans to go to public pools and libraries, made them private and kept them segregated.
[ February 21, 2004, 03:23 AM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Hobbes, making what the government issues for everyone the civil union was my first thought, too. Change the name, give everyone equal access.
A Rat Named Dog, here, here!
For anyone not familiar with Genesis, God made Adam and gave him the whole world. He talked to Adam directly and walked with him in the garden. Adam was still lonely. So God made Eve.
My church teaches that man is not perfect and will not be able to feel the perfectness of God's love until we get to Heaven and are made worthy to stand with Him. All our earthly impurities go away and we'll finally be free to truely understand the perfectness of God.
Until then, He has given us marriage as the closest we can come on earth to experiencing His love with another person. Just because many Christains fail to take their responsibilities seriously does not diminish God's gift to mankind.
Love is the most important commandment. Love God, love each other. But marriage is supposed to transcend even love. Therefore, Christains can not recognize gays as married in our sense of the word regardless of what is decided in court.
As for the "they're in love, too" argument: they weren't supposed to be looking at each other like that in the first place. You can fall in love with a married woman and try the same argumant. I'll give you the same response. Some urges are really temptations that ought to be ignored.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And if the word "marriage" were still used by any religious body after it was stricken from government use, I would hold that religious body in severe contempt (for its hypocrisy). It's like ideological indian-giving.
People want to know why some religious people feel "threatened" by gay marriage? Statements like this.
Some people, like me, believe that marriage as defined by a person's individual beliefs (religious, secular, or whatever) is separate from the civil institution of marriage. We think that the civil benefits of marriage should be available to any couple, and that people should be allowed to exercise their own conscience with regards to the "sacred" or "spiritual" side of marriage.
But some people don't want to allow the sacred aspects of marriage to be left to the individual (or to congregations of individuals). They demand these individuals change their beliefs on sacred marriage or be labeled "bigots" or "hypocrits."
I'm comfortable ignoring such hypocrisy from people claiming to be all about individual choice. Some people aren't.
Dagonee
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But believing that doesn't make gay marriage a part of the eternal reality any more than it makes gay sex a viable way to produce offspring.
quote: Bigendered marriage is a vitally important part of my faith...
quote: I advocate caution and the rule of law, and shy away from picking one solution over another until we know more.
I respect what you are saying. I don't believe you or your religion are 'bigoted' in the sense that you hate gay people.
I don't understand how if the first two statements are true, the third can have any meaning. I don't see how Mormons can ever embrace gay marriage if bi-gendered marriage is a part of their doctrine of belief.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
What about not recognizing marriages legally at all? Perhaps a credit could be given to households with dependents.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I really hope that at some point this debate gets off the whole bereavement leave/car insurance/tax benefit tack. It's insulting to everyone involved. That isn't what marriage is about, on either side of the debate.
Geoff, you'll have to pardon me for a rather cynical answer to this. Which is, "well, of course you want to get off this. It's the part of your position that's completely untenable. That it's okay to deny people equal rights under the law just because you have some moral or religious qualms about it."
Looking beyond that, I think I know what you are getting at. That marriage is about more than legal recognition of basic rights that married couples have and single couples do not. Marriage is about family and community, and a whole lot of other things.
That's really why I think the government should just stay out of the marriage contract altogether. If people want to register a union for legal purposes, that's something the government can get involved in. It would actually help for things like insurance, inheritance, and medical decision-making. Those ARE real issues that need to be dealt with by any solution we arrive at. I propose that we simply limit. Every person is allowed to form a personal union with exactly one other person. The other person must of legal age and mentally competent at the time the union is made.
Then, to make sure people don't just do this frivolously, we should establish laws and procedures for the dissolution of personal unions. It should cost money and time to break a union. And there should be equitable distribution of joint assets, child support and all the other things that people have to deal with now when they are married.
And it should be the case that anyone married in a church is automatically entered into a personal union for legal purposes. That way we don't have the equally silly outcome that people could go get married in church and then claim NOT to be married for purposes of the courts.
The only way those nagging issues are going to go away is if we address them. This way makes the most sense to me.
I think the alternative is gay marriage.
I don't think the alternative is the status quo.
Do you?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote: As for the "they're in love, too" argument: they weren't supposed to be looking at each other like that in the first place. You can fall in love with a married woman and try the same argumant. I'll give you the same response. Some urges are really temptations that ought to be ignored.
You cannot compare adultery and homosexuality. There's a huge different between the two. Gayness is not just some temptation that should be ignored. It's a part of people's life just as heterosexuality is. And it's excruciatingly painful to be gay in a world where that is simply not allowed.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:Gayness is not just some temptation that should be ignored.
Except that area is where much argument takes place. Some believe that it is a temptation, some believe that you can have the urges but must control them, some believe it's a psychological condition, others think it's genetic, others think it's an inborn trait, others think it's a disease.
There still isn't a sure answer. However, unless a person belongs to a religion that espouses that gayness is a temptation, there is no right to deny homosexuals the rights that other people can exercise.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
That's the difficult thing... That folks have about 90 different ways of looking at an issue, and who knows which way of looking at it is right? There's only what a person experiences to consider and the reading and research I've done that says that the ex-gay movement is really ineffective or causes a lot of depression and stress in anyone who takes that path.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Gah!
Religious views of homosexuality are irrelevant to this debate. It's about whether our laws are going to recognize that people can live in a committed relationship that benefits society.
I have to say that if we are willing to take taxes from gay people, allow them to serve (silently) in the military, and all the other things that we take by way of contributions from homosexuals, then we also have the obligation to recognize that they are able to form pair-bonds that benefit society as well. If that is the case, then they deserve the same legal status and protection under our laws that any other pair-bonded couple has.
We can pretty much ignore the other things like polygamy and NAMBLA etc that Geoff raises (again, the old slippery slope argument, Geoff???) by recognizing pair bonds only and then only between consenting adults. I don't see this as entirely necessary, but I can see a compelling case for the state to make this distinction.
At this level, it is ALL about fairness. And the overwhelming sense that I believe will come to everyone who thinks about this issue is that it is unfair to offer legal advantages to people for things about which the state has no compelling interest.
If the state can prove that it has a compelling interest for couples to be composed of only a man and a woman, it will prevail in the courts. I don't see this happening, though. And I think our courts are more conservative today than they've been in decades.
The point is, however, that America's laws supercede religious doctrines when it comes to civil and criminal matters. And if that changes, we really will have destroyed America in the process. And the parts of our laws that are most germaine here are those guaranteeing equal protection under the law, blind justice, and the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The very basics are what we're talking about.
It seems far easier a stretch to me to give people freedoms already guaranteed under the Constitution than to try to find new ways to grant freedoms to some but not others based on just about ANY criterion you'd care to name. It just isn't easy for Americans to do that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:What about not recognizing marriages legally at all? Perhaps a credit could be given to households with dependents.
Jenny, I wasn't ignoring you. I just missed this.
I think this is probably the easiest solution. The problem is we have a whole body of civil law surrounding the division of joint assets in marriages that would need to still be in place somehow.
And if the state fails to recognize marriages of any sort, then even your standard married couple will need to make legal arrangements for things like inheritance, hospital visitation, medical decisions, etc.
Children would complicate things further. If the state doesn't recognize marriage at all, it has to come up with some other way of assigning legal control over children. Would we have natural parents go through the equivalent of "legally adopting" their own kids? And what if they refused?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
The legal benefits that one gets from a legally binding marriage is not a right. We shouldn't treat it like that. There are many legal benefits that the government bestows on people unequally.
The government will give money grants to students who can prove that they and their parents are too poor to pay for college. Should I say my happiness is curtailed and my rights are violated because I am not protectected by affirmative action? If a person does not pass a physical to join the armed forces, but really wanted to join the armed forces, is it really fair that he cannot recieve medical care at the veteran's hospital? I do not qualify for WIC.
Oh, here is one: a few years ago while looking for a bigger apartment to move our growing family in, we saw a nice one with a playground. We had wanted a playground, and this was the first one we'd seen with a playground. We went to the rental office and were immediately asked how much we made. It turned out that this was low income, and even though we could easily afford the rent, we made too much to even be considered. The government had descriminated against us, and we were irritated. We could not get in the only apartment complex with a playground because we made too much money. But we never considered that our rights had been denied.
Discrimination happens all the time. Benefits are not rights. Not everyone qualifies for every benefit.
The reason why this is a debate more about legalities than about the definition of marriage is because that is what it must hinge on. Homosexual couples get married all the time by ministers. They have every RIGHT to perform a religious ceremony to be married to any significant other they want. No one has stopped them from being happy. No will arrest them for it.
They must challenge us on legalities, because they cannot challenge us on the intangibles. But when we say: sure, have the legalities, that is a reasonable expectation, they are still not happy. It is not enough. What is really wanted here?
They cannot change OUR beliefs when we say: God can only recognize marriage between a man and a woman. But I think they want the government to say that. If the government can tell a religious minister that they will now recognize the marriage ceremony performed for the homosexual couple, then the government is telling them that God will recognize that union.
The government has no such authority, nor should it pretend to.
So I say: abolish the practice of giving religious clergy the authority to make legally binding marriages.
This is perfectly acceptable and has precedent.
In the Soviet Union, they strove to get rid of the religious aspect of marriage. I've seen videos of weddings over there.
It comes down to this: Two people getting married and two witnesses go to a beaurocrat's desk, promise to abide by some rules and then sign a few legal papers.
If you are religious, you go to the church and get married. After that, you go to the party and get smashed. If you aren't religious, you go directly to the party and get smashed.
In the US, where a civil union can be enacted by a religious authority, the LDS church will not perform the temple ceremony until one year has passed if the person chose to be married outside of the temple. In countries where the the government does not recognize religious ceremonies as legally binding, members of the LDS church go and sign papers, and then go get married in the temple.
But until we do that, I really can't condone government sanction of homosexual marriage.
As far as children go, that is a different ball of wax. But you probably can get an idea of my opinion when I state that under no circumstances has adoption ever been a right. And that sex with a person outside of marriage, even a legally binding one, is justification for dissolution of the government contract which is more legally binding than any verbal agreement. And that agencies arranging sperm donation or surrogate mothers must be very selective with regards to the psychological health of its clients.
[ February 21, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:It comes down to this: Two people getting married and two witnesses go to a beaurocrat's desk, promise to abide by some rules and then sign a few legal papers.
If you are religious, you go to the church and get married. After that, you go to the party and get smashed. If you aren't religious, you go directly to the party and get smashed.
Currently, it is possible for two people to get married by getting two witnesses and a license and going to a justice of the peace.
And the idea that people that do not practice a religion immediately go and get smashed after a wedding is...a generalization that has no place in a rational discussion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think she's just talking about Russia where, from what I understand, drinking is something of a national past time. Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I am talking about Russia here. Notice, the religious people took a detour to the church first.
Yes, you can have a civil ceremony without God.
And you can have a religious ceremony without the government.
But homosexuals are not happy with having merely the legal union or merely a religious ceremony. They want to be able to have clergy with authority given to them by the government to say that God sanctions this marriage. The government does not ethically, religiously, or constitutionally have that authority.
If none of our religious ceremonies were recognized by the government, that would solve the problem, as I see it. It is just another angle on the "get the government out of our personal lives" argument.
[ February 21, 2004, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Storm, my politics are more moderate than my religious views because I recognize the need to live in a nation among people with wildly different ideals. I also don't advocate outlawing coffee and tea, nor do I think the government should mandate a 10% charitable donation out of every family's income. The fact that I hold a sacred belief about marriage does not mean that I should necessarily enforce it, verbatim, on the rest of society.
For instance, in my faith, homosexual intercourse is a sin. But I am strongly in favor of repealing sodomy laws because I don't think it's the government's place to rule on such matters. I would still look askance at a practicing Mormon who attempted to simultaneuosly practice as a homosexual, because that would be hypocritical. But someone outside the church has no personal obligation to live by teachings of which they are ignorant or disbelieving.
(There are some general trends that I see as unhealthy, such as young people becoming sexually active at an increasingly tender age, cultural advocacy of promiscuity, and the absolutely ridiculous illegitimacy rate, but I believe that is something we should address socially, not legally.)
Gay marriage is an interesting special case because the state of marriage and family in this country is important to everyone, whether they know it or not. And while everyone is convinced that a stack of studies or scriptures supports their extreme view on the matter, most of the strongest advocates on either side come across to me as crazy people.
When I say I don't recommend a particular course of action, I'm saying that I'm not in favor of gay marriage, but I'm also not in favor of condemning gays and offering them nothing — a total victory for that camp would be much uglier than I could ever stomach. So I'm looking for a moderate solution, like Amka's or Hobbes's. And I don't think we've found the ideal answer yet. So I say, hold on, San Francisco. Calm it down, and let's see if we can find a better way.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Amka, I think you miss the point. The whole issue is whether the state has a compelling interest to do what it does when it does something discriminatory. The state usually gets challenged on it and has to prove that it did have a compelling interest to do what it did.
For example, that low-income apartment you didn't qualify for was built/renovated with special funds set aside specifically for that purpose. If those funds hadn't been there, in all likelihood, the apartment wouldn't have been either. If the government then allowed high income people to get the apartments, it would be violating its own laws regarding disbursement of funds for low-income housing.
Also, in most communities, there are a fair number of apartments created in the "low income" category for the express purpose of off setting some exclusive development nearby. In other words, in order to win government approval of the REAL project, the developers had to promise to create affordable housing for the poor. It's an attempt by government to stem the tide of homelessness in the wake of redevelopment, gentrification, etc.
So, you basically were trying to get housing that was cheaper and better than what the community you live in says is right for you and your income level. In other words, you wanted something for nothing, ... at least in comnparison to your community's standards. And you were willing to do it at the expense of someone less well off than you are. And you wanted to do it with my tax dollars.
(I know, I know, you would've paid fair market value for the apartment. Unfortunately, that development's bond structure didn't allow that).
Anyway, the only germaine part of that whole discussion is whether the government has a compelling interest in the discrimination it engages in.
In the case of affordable housing, it does.
In the case of marriage, I don't think it can ultimately prove the case.
As for adoption, I think that governments which allow gay people to be foster parents are going to have a pretty tough time barring them from legal adoption. Florida recently won a case like this, but I think ultimately the Supreme Court will overturn it and Florida's entire adoption law will be turned upside down as a consequence.
That's the biggest problem I have with all of this. That we waste time trying to shore up discriminatory practices where the state has no compelling interest and EVERYONE KNOWS IT. Why do that unless it is to pander to particular blocks of voters who aren't ready for the eventual change?
In the meantime, the public has to pay to defend the state in lawsuits that most of them HOPE the state loses. Criminy sakes, how does that make sense?
And we have to waste time trying to craft legislation that will institutionalize the "fine points" of someone's idea of where the line should be set when, in fact, the best and most equitable thing to do is just fix the existing laws and treat everyone the same whenever possible -- when taht's consistent with the state's compelling interests.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks for response, ARND. I think I understand your position more clearly, now.
[ February 21, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Geoff...
Am I just imagining things or have you decided never to respond to one of my posts?
If so, I'm sure it's because I said something offensive to you in the past, but I sure don't know what it would've been.
Maybe if you e-mail me about it, I could figure out a way to set things right.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:John L, that's right, equal, equal, equal, equal, equal, say it again, we didn't hear you, equal. Let's treat everyone the same by giving everyone exactly what they want all the time. Let's let polygamists in Colorado City marry as many women as they want, let's let NAMBLA marry eleven-year-olds, let's let cats and dogs live together, let's let vampires marry hemophiliacs, and everyone will be happy. Because it is just not FAIR that someone should feel a desire and not get to fulfill it, when other people get to fulfill their desires. It's not FAIR! WAAA!
Yup, when there's no reasonable argument for denying a people rights, the usual tactic of unrelated straw men comes up. This is the number one reason why people are treated like second-class citizens, now and before.
It's not about a desire to have sex with children, because homosexuality has nothing to do with minors. Implying it does is highly bigoted, and comparing homosexuality with pedophilia is implying it does. It's not about a desire to have multiple partners in a marriage, because the push for homosexual marriage rights has nothing to do with having multiple partners. Implying it does is highly bigoted, and comparing homosexual marriage with polygamy is implying it does (comparing polygamy to pedophilia is pretty good, since all known cases of polygamy in the US currently have a male "married" to some 12 and 12 year olds).
And a "vampire" (someone who drinks blood) can marry a hemophiliac, Geoff. Provided it's a heterosexual couple. Same with couples who have every inch of their body tattooed, pierced, or otherwise mutilated. As far as the US is concerned, their outward appearance doesn't stop them from having the right to heterosexual marriage. So, I don't know where you pulled that one from, but you're straw man is pretty useless with this regard.
And Amka, the privileges bestowed upon married couples became a right when it became a requirement for these other institutions to bestow these privileges. Just because they aren't inalienable rights does not make them cease to be rights. And denying homosexual couples those privilages is still bigoted and hateful. Call it what you want, but a rose is a rose is a bigot is a bigot.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
And once again: THE WORD "MARRIAGE" NO LONGER BELONGS ONLY TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, AND HAS NOT FOR AT LEAST OVER A CENTURY. THE MORE PEOPLE REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS, THE MORE THEY ARE ALLOWING A BIGOTED AND HATEFUL MENTALITY TO PROSPER. NO ONE IS TELLING YOUR RELIGION TO STOP DISAGREEING WITH HOMOSEXUALITY, PEOPLE ARE JUST TELLING YOUR RELIGIONS TO STOP HOLDING DOWN THOSE YOU DISAGREE WITH AS IF YOU THINK YOU RUN THIS COUNTRY.
Why not just be honest about it, and admit that you don't want to allow some people to have equal opportunity? Why not be up front with your wanting to pass immediate judgement on others because your faith disagrees with them? At least the "God Hates Fags" crowd is being honest with their hatefulness.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:But homosexuals are not happy with having merely the legal union or merely a religious ceremony. They want to be able to have clergy with authority given to them by the government to say that God sanctions this marriage.
Nonsense. First, many homosexuals and equal rights advocates are okay with just having civil unions -- this can be found simply by reading their platforms -- which completely invalidates the point in their case. Second, the government cannot force a clergyperson to marry anyone, and has never tried to. Why should your belief that a clergyperson cannot marry homosexuals be forced upon clergy who do not share your belief? Also, there are plenty of clergy out there who can and do say that God sanctions homosexual unions, so its sort of a moot point -- the marriage is the license from the government, the ceremony performed is merely an instantiation of it typically, but hardly exclusively, performed by the clergy. Furthermore, since members of any clergy are given the ability to perform such ceremonies, it is most certainly not an endorsement by God. A number of the faiths that perform ceremonies don't believe in a single God! The idea that the government is saying God sanctions marriages is ludicrous.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
John, I don't think shouting will work.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
You'll notice that calm, rational discussion hasn't worked either. A few of us have had posts ignored entirely despite the knowledge contained within. As with you, Bob, my posts also go unanswered.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
That's because they just ignore it anyway. Not a single one of the people who keep saying the same thing over and over has given a thoughtful response to Mack's short essay. I'd wager that not one of them has read it all the way through. The bold capitalization wasn't so much shouting as it was putting it very clearly into text that you have to intentionally skip to not read.
I'm starting to wonder what's more insulting: ignoring with no indication of doing so or at least admitting that you're ignoring.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Change will happen, despite the reluctance of anyone. The pendulum is swinging. Let them cry out against it. They are powerless to stop it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Mack...Oh, I thought it was just me.
I'm actually glad to be included in SOME group today, even if it is the group that's being ignored.
<lonely, lonely Bob...>
Gah!
Anyway, I was just poking fun, John.
So...Geoff, any response? Amka?
Geoff, I do see that you have taken a stand which would allow for civil union or something similar. I think the part that bothers me is the "eventually" aspect of it. There are two problems with the "further study" approach as I understand it:
1) There's no objective criteria for deciding when we have ENOUGH study. And what TO study is a problem too. Many of the people I've heard advocate this position are talking about longitudinal studies of children's outcomes raised under varying conditions. The ethical problems with actually conducting such studies aside, there's a fatal flaw. Children raised by people who are denied some of the same advantages as others are at a disadvantage to begin with. You'd have to level the playing field first to make a decent study even possible.
2) Nobody should have to wait for fairness. With Congress getting ready to craft legislation that actually makes things worse -- by codifying nationally what is now a state-level issue -- one could argue that the push to change is being fueled by the conservative religious movement's attempt to see if they have the muscle to push through this agenda item. Far from there being a gay agenda on this issue, the Conservatives are the one that seem to want to push it NOW.
There's nothing to do but fight now because that's the battle line that's been drawn.
I think there's no choice.
And we need to settle the issue now, not let it fester.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Interesting, John, that you chose only to respond to the part of my post that I labeled as an emotional, snarky reaction that did not represent my actual position. Clearly, you believe emotional venting is appropriate behavior on an internet forum, so I don't see how you can fault me Note that the rest of my post was not built on any of the things I said in the initial, offensive paragraph.
Now, are you capable of addressing my real argument, or are you simply content to hold your fingers in your ears and shout "Bigot! Bigot!" at the top of your lungs like a child?
The best part, though, is your Amazing Zambini act ...
quote:Why not be up front with your wanting to pass immediate judgement on others because your faith disagrees with them? At least the "God Hates Fags" crowd is being honest with their hatefulness.
Aha. So I go to the fruitless effort of explaining my beliefs to you in a way that hopefully will help you understand that it's possible to believe that heterosexual marriages have some unique features without hating gays ... and you are content to respond by claiming to read my mind.
"Sure, Geoff, you SAY all that stuff about your faith, but I know through my magical powers that no matter what you say, you're REALLY just looking for an excuse to hate gay people, so THERE!"
Dude, if you can't show at least the slightest tolerance and open-mindedness towards people with different backgrounds and worldviews than your own, then how in the world can you expect other people to have any respect for yours?
Let me try an analogy, to see if I can crack through your prejudice. The Irish are more prone to sunburn than Native Americans. That's just a fact. Does saying so mean that I hate Irish people, or think they are somehow less worthy than Native Americans? No. It's just the truth. It's a challenge that the Irish have to face on the beach every summer.
Similarly, heterosexual intercourse has the potential to create human offspring. Homosexual intercourse does not. Again, stating this fact shows no bigotry whatsoever. It's just the truth. Homosexual couples who wish to have children must, universally, turn to other means besides sex with each other to do so.
And so again, similarly, heterosexual marriage is tied into the Mormon view of eternal life in a way that homosexual marriage is not. That doesn't mean that the people involved are more or less worthy of happiness, or that I hate one group more than the other. It's just the truth. It's a natural law to Mormons, as immutable as the functioning of the human reproductive system, or the functioning of melanin in the skin. I can have any amount of good feelings toward the homosexual community, and this fact will remain unchanged.
It shows a deep contempt for people of faith that you can equate this benign doctrine with "God Hates Fags" hatemongering. You presuppose that we simply invent our beliefs in order to justify feelings that you have already magically divined us to have.
Let me tell you something. Presupposing that all religious people are bigoted, blinded hatemongers, and refusing to even consider listening when we attempt to tell you otherwise is PRECISELY as offensive and bigoted as a religious person presupposing that all gay people are in it because they love to sin. The difference between you and me here is the fact that I do not hold any such bigoted view of gays, while you hold plenty of bigoted views about me. If you want to fight bigotry, spend a few days locked in a room with a mirror.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
First off, Mack I read your essay like I promised. I’m still processing it… but what response do you want exactly? And I’m sorry if you thought I was ignoring you, I really wasn’t.
quote: Hobbes, when you say that you would do away with government-operated marriage and replace it with civil unions which any two people could enter into and leave it to churches to do actual marriages. To me, this devalues my parents' marriage. They aren't just two people who want a list of certain legal rights. They chose to spend the rest of their lives together, to love each other in sickness and in health and so on. But they didn't include religion in that. That doesn't mean it's less worthy of the status of marriage.
RRR, In my opinion what makes your parents special and valuable is what you already describe in there. “They chose to spend the rest of their lives together, to love each other in sickness and in health and so on”. They don’t have to include religion, in my solution it wouldn’t be a legally defined word at all that has to be done at a Church, it’s all about vows, and if they’ve made those vows they would call them selves married. That seems more valuable than the government attesting that they’ve had their blood checked.
quote: What about not recognizing marriages legally at all? Perhaps a credit could be given to households with dependents.
Exactly what I was saying Jenny.
quote: That's really why I think the government should just stay out of the marriage contract altogether. If people want to register a union for legal purposes, that's something the government can get involved in. It would actually help for things like insurance, inheritance, and medical decision-making. Those ARE real issues that need to be dealt with by any solution we arrive at. I propose that we simply limit. Every person is allowed to form a personal union with exactly one other person. The other person must of legal age and mentally competent at the time the union is made.
It sounds to me like you’re agreeing with me here Bob. Is that true?
quote: There still isn't a sure answer. However, unless a person belongs to a religion that espouses that gayness is a temptation, there is no right to deny homosexuals the rights that other people can exercise.
As with you Mack, do you agree with my solution?
quote: Implying it does is highly bigoted, and comparing homosexual marriage with polygamy is implying it does
John, do you have any studies that show that polygamist families are any less healthy, or that the children they raise or less adjusted? If not, I hope you can see why the slippery slope argument makes sense in this case. I’ve heard lots of people say that it’s a ridiculous argument because polygamy is so different and why would anyone worry about it? Because it seems that the case is if you can’t come up with sociological studies to prove a law is bad, then you must pass the law, and I have to admit, I doubt I could come up with a single sociological study that would show polygamy as being damaging to anyone.
quote: Why not be up front with your wanting to pass immediate judgement on others because your faith disagrees with them? At least the "God Hates Fags" crowd is being honest with their hatefulness.
I just lost at least one friend recently because she thought exactly that John. Why is everyone assumes I’m incapable of holding a moral opinion on homosexuality and still be able to like, and not judge someone engaged in homosexual acts? Why is that if I say I think it’s a damaging choice everyone tells me I’m in tolerant? You just said that no one’s trying to stop religions from having an opinion on the matter, and then you attack religious opinion on the matter.
quote: You'll notice that calm, rational discussion hasn't worked either. A few of us have had posts ignored entirely despite the knowledge contained within. As with you, Bob, my posts also go unanswered.
I’m sorry both of you, I’m trying, I really am. Do you forgive me?
quote: Change will happen, despite the reluctance of anyone. The pendulum is swinging. Let them cry out against it. They are powerless to stop it.
Probably true.
Hobbes
[ February 21, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Bob, please email me.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:No. It's just the truth. It's a challenge that the Irish have to face on the beach every summer.
I have a personal testimony of this.
Hobbes Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Oh hey Bob, sorry you've gotten the impression that I'm avoiding you. I just have a bad habit of skimming everything I ever read, and I miss a lot of important bits ...
quote:1) There's no objective criteria for deciding when we have ENOUGH study. And what TO study is a problem too. Many of the people I've heard advocate this position are talking about longitudinal studies of children's outcomes raised under varying conditions. The ethical problems with actually conducting such studies aside, there's a fatal flaw. Children raised by people who are denied some of the same advantages as others are at a disadvantage to begin with. You'd have to level the playing field first to make a decent study even possible.
We do have some localities where gay marriage is now permitted. There will probably be a few more sometime soon. Let's just put on the brakes before going national with the policy, and see if we can determine some results.
But honestly, my caution approach is aimed at a wider picture than simply gay marriage. I think we really screwed up when we started tearing down the social requirement of marriage-before-sex, the need for legitimacy, and the responsibility of parents to stay in an imperfect marriage for the sake of the children.
I also think we're straining intellectual honesty when we start treating a psychological phenomenon as being equivalent to a race or a heritage. The human mind is a very difficult thing to predict or understand. You can't assign a single, sweeping cause to homosexuality, nor can you with any honesty or confidence prescribe a single answer to those who experience some degree of homosexual feeling.
Yet our culture is very quickly bisecting the gender definitions to create cultural subgenders defined by shocking levels of prejudice. If a young man ever experiences a homosexual feeling, or if he likes dance and theater, or if he speaks with an effeminate manner, or if he doesn't like sports, or if he cares "too much" about the hygiene of his nails, he is told by the supposedly open-minded establishment that the only way for him to be honest and happy with himself is to embrace his obvious gayness. Regardless of whether or not he is actually gay.
We even created the word "metrosexual" to explain the shocking incidence of a heterosexual man who dresses well and uses gel in his hair. What offends me is the fact that the word "heterosexual" has now apparently become so narrow and specific that it includes a man's hair styling habits.
A heterosexual man should be able to do whatever the hell he wants without worrying about being mislabeled as a homosexual, and certainly, if gays feel that they have been unfairly pressured to act straight, they ought to understand that it would be similarly harmful to pressure a straight man into redefining himself as gay.
I say we need to put on the brakes because we're careening down a road that could make a lot of people very unhappy in the future. We've made a lot of progress in seeking to eliminate physical mistreatment of and scorn for homosexuals, but the worldview that we are replacing that prejudice with is similarly, if not as threateningly, flawed. We are indoctrinating one another with beliefs about sexuality that have very little merit, and untimately, someone is going to regret it.
quote:2) Nobody should have to wait for fairness. With Congress getting ready to craft legislation that actually makes things worse -- by codifying nationally what is now a state-level issue -- one could argue that the push to change is being fueled by the conservative religious movement's attempt to see if they have the muscle to push through this agenda item. Far from there being a gay agenda on this issue, the Conservatives are the one that seem to want to push it NOW.
People should have to wait for fairness when we are not yet sure what fairness entails. Are you saying that our immediate response to any request from a minority should be to instantly grant it in the interest of fairness, and then find out later whether or not what we did was a mistake? If we grant universal gay marriage throughout the country, there is NO GOING BACK. While it seems politically difficult to instigate the change right now, it will be politically impossible to ever, ever take the slightest step in the other direction. So if we're ever going to be careful and analytical about this, and if we're ever going to catch a warning sign and reconsider a portion of our plans, we have to do it NOW. There will be no other opportunity.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
mack:
I read the essay, and find it unconvincing.
quote: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.
By Rawles definition, so did the folks who sat in the doors of schools, forbidding black children to enter. Non-violent, conscientious objection.
Still illegal.
This isn't Walden-- and the mayor of San Fran isn't Thoreau.
quote: 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.
I don't have much of a complaint on anything in this passage except for the idea that uncontested divorce has not yielded terrible effects on society.
Your essay even gives a nod to the fallacy of this idea-- at the end, where it talks about how children of gay parents are better adjusted than the children of divorced parents.
quote:22 percent of gay/bisexual couples are raising children as compared to 23 percent of married/heterosexual couples.
Somehow this statistic just seems wrong to me. That's an awfully low number of heterosexual married couples with kids. This means that 77% of married couples do not have children. It just seems inaccurate.
quote: 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.
Why is this included in your essay? You must certainly be aware that fathers are usually on the losing end of child custody cases. Honestly, and I hope you aren't proposing this, this little tidbit implies that every father that wants to keep his kids after divorce should be screened for pedophillic tendencies.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Interesting, John, that you chose only to respond to the part of my post that I labeled as an emotional, snarky reaction that did not represent my actual position.
Because I already addressed your position. You say that if the gays would stop trying to take away religion's value of marriage—which they are not, and which has no legal bearing on the privileges heterosexual marriages currently enjoy—that everything could be worked out. That's not saying much, and I already pointed out the flaws with Hobes' first post.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:You say that if the gays would stop trying to take away religion's value of marriage—which they are not, and which has no legal bearing on the privileges heterosexual marriages currently enjoy—that everything could be worked out.
So, apparently, I'm saying that if "the gays" would stop trying to take away my religion's value of marriage, everything could be worked out. Wow, I had no idea I felt that way. Thanks, Amazing Zambini!
Hm. No, wait a minute [reads back] ... What I'm clearly and repeatedly saying is that my political views on gay marriage are quite moderate, but my offense that John L treats my religion with willful blindness, bigotry, and contempt is quite serious. I believe him to be the worst kind of bigot, who has merely taken the liberal stance as a politically-tenable means of promoting his own brand of self-righteousness, prejudice, and hatred. If he is otherwise, he merely needs to make some attempt to demonstrate that fact, as I have done repeatedly for him.
Yet he continues to ignore my own protestations of injustice and bigotry, while expecting other people to listen to his. Strange world that he lives in.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Scott R, the 22/23 percent of couples raising children was likely defined as: Parent has dependent listed btwn 0-18 or so.
Married couples do get old and stop producing children. Lets say the average couple lasts 40 years. Maybe for 25 of those years, a couple is raising a child. Okay, so 15/40 years they're not.
Then there are the many couples who do not have children. I refer you to this site which links to many communities devoted to the voluntary childless marriage.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Ironic that I'm a conservative who wants as many hands out of government as possible. Ironic that I'm the same John (different name) that has defended not only your faith, but all Christian faiths on this very forum from those just out to damn the religion(s).
No, wait... that's not ironic. That's just being consistent when it comes to wanting individual liberties equally available across the board.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Sun-- I think you'll find that the Canadian statistic I linked to points to a much more realistic number (it was taken by the Canadian census, I believe), of 44% or so. Ages 0-24.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: This isn't Walden-- and the mayor of San Fran isn't Thoreau.
I'm not sure what your statment specifically means, other than you don't agree that what's happening in SF is civil disobedience, but the question that occurs to me is, is there a place for civil disobedience in society, and what is the place and time for it? Isn't this one of those times?
The logical reply, that people should work through the democratic process, is understandable. The question is, if any gay person that is alive today ever wants to get married by the state and have it called marriage, what are the odds that they will be able to do so, given the current political and cultural climate? I think a case can be made that the chances are not good.
If this is true, then it seems to me that we might be able to conclude that the democratic process is not an option for gay couples, and that they have two choices. Either they can not get married (marriage here meaning married by the state) or they can get married in the fashion that they are now.
Please ignore what you think marriage means in your reply and understand that, apparently, to many gay people, marriage really only has validity if it's done by the state and called 'marriage'. Maybe they're really patriotic? Or maybe they just don't want to tell people they meet that they're 'civil unioned' when they flash their rings.
Anyways, two questions. Generally, when is civil disobedience warranted? Specifically, is it warranted in this case?
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
My problem on this issue is that I'm sensitive to both sides, that I simultaneously feel I'm holding both positions (or moderate versions of each). My inclination against normalizing homosexual marriage is based on a problem that all social revolutions must overcome: our complete inability to predict the ramifications of any change, especially one that calls into question the beliefs of so many millions of people, pitting the government against what a good number of world religions consider morally correct. So while on the one hand I want my gay friends to be able to enjoy the freedoms and rights that my wife and I are conceded in our own marriage, I simultaneously am made very nervous by the possible ripples, fluctuations, complex loops and so forth that could lead us as a society down paths we can't at present imagine and that we may eventually bemoan. Of course, this is the case with all systemic shifts, and what must be weighed is the likely immediate benefit against the unknown future detrimental effects.
I am, I repeat, very torn as a result. But I have a feeling there's no stemming the tide, so I just kind of stand to one side and let it rise.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
[side note]
I was watching a news report the other night about what's happening in SF. They included a shot panning down the long long line of people waiting to get a marriage certificate. One of the people was a woman, middle-aged, who had obviously dressed up for the occasion, holding a single lily of the valley. She looked so happy, she was glowing, even in the brief glimpse you got as the camera moved by her.
I was surprised to find myself choked up after seeing this. I've always supported and seen gay marriage as a civil rights issue, but it really hit home that moment. We're not talking about hordes of depraved young gays wanting to give societal norms the finger. These are good, everyday people who just want a chance to make the committment and receive the legal protections that every other adult American can. It broke my heart.
[/side note]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yeah. I feel the same way, Ayelar. I've always supported gay marriage on principle, and because I've never seen anyone give me a good reason why gay people shouldn't be able to marry, but seeing the pictures of those couples in, whose thread was it here? you or lalo's thread?, and then they have a photo series on time.com, it really brought home to me in a very visceral way the importance of being able to engage in a basic part of society as fully recognized members of society is for many gay people.
edit: can't make the sentence scan right. screw it.
[ February 21, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Storm-- 'Civil disobedience,' by Henry David Thoreau.
Snarkiness doesn't work so well if you have to explain it. . .
Generally, I can accept civil disobedience when it is on the part of the PEOPLE against the government. But for the government to turn against the will of the people (the large majority of Californians are against the mayor's actions, according to some reports) and thumb its nose at legislation that was passed by popular vote just a couple years ago-- yeah, that's not civil disobedience in my book.
Civil disobedience on the part of the homosexuals IS warranted in this case. Certainly, they feel they are not able to take part in common society-- and that is what, in the end, the gay marriage debate is really about. Normalizing the gay life style and finding general societal acceptance for it.
Which is exactly what those protesting this DON'T want, and why civil disobedience will be the result of legalizing gay marriage.
Getcha comin' and goin.'
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
On a side note, its worth pointing out that Thoreau made a number of his more famous "real life experiences" up.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Then why not reduce it to a personal level? Not a matter of politics or religion but just about 2 people who want the right to bind themselves to another person they care about. (Who knows, maybe I'll find a woman who for some reason would want to marry me) And how about if churches reserve the right to refuse to let gays marry if they want to? Marriage doesn't always have to take place in a church and there are plenty of churches (See the NYC gay pride parent) that support gays and lesbians. I'd like to start a topic about religion and gayness and why would anyone want to join a church that is against their existence?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'd like to start a topic about religion and gayness and why would anyone want to join a church that is against their existence?
Well, since most churches aren't "against their existence" it probably wouldn't be a very relevant discussion.
Dagonee
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I was struggling to find a right way to say that. I have been involved in this debate online since around 96 and also with family members.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Change will happen, despite the reluctance of anyone. The pendulum is swinging. Let them cry out against it. They are powerless to stop it.
quote:I am, I repeat, very torn as a result. But I have a feeling there's no stemming the tide, so I just kind of stand to one side and let it rise.
David, you've changed since you started coming to this board.
So have I, I guess.
[ February 21, 2004, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Most Christian denominations phrase it as "sexual actions outside of marriage is a sin." Based on their definition of marriage as being between a man and a women, all homosexual actions are sinful. Just as pre-marital sex is sinful.
Obviously, this has different effects, since someone only attracted to same-sex partners will have no "legitimate" sexual outlet. But the core prohibition is the same.
If you're interested in learning the reasons behind the doctrine, you might want to start a thread about it requesting information. I generally won't participate in such threads because I've found them to be fairly useless. The sexual morality of Christianity is not "core" doctrine and is in some sense "derived" from the more central tenets of the faith.
I'd contribute to such a thread as long as people are genuinely seeking information about how the homosexuality doctrine fits in with the rest of Christianity. I won't participate in an argument about whether homosexuality is right or wrong, because it's not important to me outside the confines of Christianity.
Dagonee
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Geoff, thanks for responding. I was getting a complex!
you said:
quote:Yet our culture is very quickly bisecting the gender definitions to create cultural subgenders defined by shocking levels of prejudice. If a young man ever experiences a homosexual feeling, or if he likes dance and theater, or if he speaks with an effeminate manner, or if he doesn't like sports, or if he cares "too much" about the hygiene of his nails, he is told by the supposedly open-minded establishment that the only way for him to be honest and happy with himself is to embrace his obvious gayness. Regardless of whether or not he is actually gay.
We even created the word "metrosexual" to explain the shocking incidence of a heterosexual man who dresses well and uses gel in his hair. What offends me is the fact that the word "heterosexual" has now apparently become so narrow and specific that it includes a man's hair styling habits.
Hmm...I look at this differently. Young men, especially, are often unsure of their sexuality. I mean, raging hormones and the frequency of erections regardless of WHAT external stimuli are present in the environment can lead to all sorts of confusing cognitive processes. Openness in discussing things of this nature would, I believe, only serve to help them understand that what they think of as unique, weird and perhaps even "gay" in themselves is really just normal and that things settle down eventually.
What this has to do with what you posted is this: I think most of the people who put pressure on adolescent males regarding "being gay" is other adolescent males. It is a subculture right out of Lord of the Flies, IMHO.
What's really needed is maturity in who the kids talk to and in our society in general. And frankly, I do NOT see that happening. I think our repression of all talk of sexuality makes us somewhat sex-obsessed as a nation and certainly unrealistic in our understanding of what is normal.
I do think that there's a religious overtone to taht repression as well. But it has become more than just the legacy of our "puritan ancestors." I think we Americans, as a culture are far too concerned about the "norm" and as a result anything that's not considered the norm is automatically labelled as wrong, bad for America, sinful, and so on.
Then there's this:
quote:I say we need to put on the brakes because we're careening down a road that could make a lot of people very unhappy in the future. We've made a lot of progress in seeking to eliminate physical mistreatment of and scorn for homosexuals, but the worldview that we are replacing that prejudice with is similarly, if not as threateningly, flawed. We are indoctrinating one another with beliefs about sexuality that have very little merit, and untimately, someone is going to regret it.
Who? For what reasons? What "indoctrination" are you talking about?
Again, I think there's too much of the school yard and too little of just plain common sense and decency in America's attitudes about sex, sexuality, and homosexuality in particular. Anything that replaces that kind of thing with actual information is good as far as I'm concerned. And hundreds of years too late in the offing.
Finally,
quote: People should have to wait for fairness when we are not yet sure what fairness entails. Are you saying that our immediate response to any request from a minority should be to instantly grant it in the interest of fairness, and then find out later whether or not what we did was a mistake? If we grant universal gay marriage throughout the country, there is NO GOING BACK. While it seems politically difficult to instigate the change right now, it will be politically impossible to ever, ever take the slightest step in the other direction. So if we're ever going to be careful and analytical about this, and if we're ever going to catch a warning sign and reconsider a portion of our plans, we have to do it NOW. There will be no other opportunity.
I'm not actually advocating gay marriage, but rather the change that would do away with civil marriage altogether and replace it with civil union.
That aside, however, I think that what's implied in the first sentence above -- that we ought to wait until "we're sure" what fairness means is worse than doing nothing. Frankly, the people living under this discrimination and bad public policy aren't likely to want to wait and I don't think they should have to. Basically, if you agree that SOMETHING ought to be done, then it ought to have been done long ago. To recognize the need and then ask for patience while we, as a society, come to grips with it is too intellectualized an approach. There are real people suffering and their needs should matter more than the possibility of maybe making a mistake.
Change in society ALWAYS happens later than it should. It happens after the fact, when it just becomes untenable NOT to change. I know that's how this will also play out. But frankly, I think the sign of a mature culture in America would be when we can intellectually understand that an issue is real, that the problem should be worked on, and then bring all sides together to work on it in real time...not future time, or "when we're sure..." time.
We're never sure.
You tell people you want to wait until you're sure, you are telling them "nope, we're not going to act." At least that's what they'll take it to mean. That their lives and happiness aren't important enough to America to deal with the issue NOW, while it could do them some good.
That's a raw deal. And by rights, we ought to give them all at least a 15% discount on their taxes if that's what our decision is.
'Cuz their feeling like 85% citizens.
(NOTE: I made those numbers up...but I'm sure people get the point).
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Generally, I can accept civil disobedience when it is on the part of the PEOPLE against the government. But for the government to turn against the will of the people (the large majority of Californians are against the mayor's actions, according to some reports) and thumb its nose at legislation that was passed by popular vote just a couple years ago-- yeah, that's not civil disobedience in my book.
I don't think whether civil disobedience is performed by a government official changes whether something is civil disobedience? Honest question.
I also don't mean to imply that I definitely support what the mayor of SF is doing. I'm on the fence.
quote: Civil disobedience on the part of the homosexuals IS warranted in this case. Certainly, they feel they are not able to take part in common society-- and that is what, in the end, the gay marriage debate is really about. Normalizing the gay life style and finding general societal acceptance for it.
No. I believe this is incorrect. Seeking to be an equal member of society is not the same as seeking society's approval to engage in something which is, from one perspective, your right as a citizen and is important to you. I don't think the gay people who got married today seriously give a rat's patootie about those who don't accept them.
quote: Which is exactly what those protesting this DON'T want, and why civil disobedience will be the result of legalizing gay marriage.
Thank you for being honest that there is a segment of the population who do not (will never?) accept gay people. It makes the whole 'convince the people argument' a little harder to follow through with. I agree that there will probably be civil disobedience. There already has been on the part of a Christian group that tried to block people from getting married. :/ Also, I am curious what the gay lifestyle is? Is that like the lifestyles of the rich and famous but with less money?
I agree with you that there is going to be civil disobedience whether or not gay marriage is accepted.
Posted by purpledawn (Member # 6238) on :
I think many of the aspects and ramifications of legalizing homosexual marriages have been well touched on here, however there is one argument which I have heard anti-homosexual marriage politicans use quite frequently that I think is inaccurate. This is the concept that marriage is a longstanding tradition of binding together a man and woman so they may experience the greatest love possible, short of the love of God, of course. AvidReader reitereated this in his post early in this thread stating "He[God] has given us marriage as the closest we can come on earth to experiencing His love with another person."
I think this is a lovely ideal of what marriage should be, however historically, marriage between a man and a woman because they are in love/ love one another very much is a fairly recent phenomenon. Since the emergence of Christianity (and before as well) marriage has been almost predominantly for either economic, political, or social gain. Rulers of countries married their sons and daughters to form alliances, peasants encouraged their sons and daughters to marry someone with more livestock or higher social standing than their family because marriage was the essentially the only way to move up in the stagnant class system of the times.
Though I am unsure of the exact dates, I believe that only since the industrial revolution have the majority of couples really had the sanction (by family, community, etc.), ability, and opperunity to marry and form neolocal partnerships/families based on love and that alone. As, I have demonstrated marriage has not traditionally been about love but was performed for various socioeconomic reasons.
Therefore, I fear that I must disagree with Hobbes' main point that started this thread (that the word "marriage" in the political arena should be eliminated entirely). The term "marriage" has long been used to describe the legal union of two people, and in fact this is the primary definition of the word found in The American Heritage Dictionary. The secondary definition denotes a "wedding", which the same dictionary defines as: 1)To take as a spouse; marry. 2)To perform the marriage ceremony for; join in matrimony. 3)To unite closely: a style that weds form and function. 4)To cause to adhere devotedly or stubbornly: He was wedded to the idea of building a new school. I don't find any of these definitions to be particularly religious in nature, and are certainly not specifically Christian.
In my opinion it seems totally unecessary to change the word we use to discribe a legal marriage. I think that using the term "civil union" would be demeaning to both homosexual and heterosexual couples, because culturally it is seen as an inferior partnership to marriage. Marriage now refers to the union of two people, either legally or in the eyes of God, and it seems to be that definition would still fit perfectly well if homosexuals were given the right to legally marry, as they could marry legally even if not in the eyes of God.
Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and and other religions places of worship have every right to select whom they will marry within their own place of worship, but they should not be able to influence who is legally married outside of their institution. I sincerely hope that the people of America, will remember their constitutional garentee of the seperation of church and state while evaluated this issue.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)