I am no more a bigot that those who are pro-gay marriage are towards those of us who are not by definition:
quote: big·ot ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bgt) n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
There are differing opinions on the issue and both sides are valid in their opinions. You can't discount one sides voice because you "disagree" or it doesn't fit "your set of morals". You can't say their voice isn't theirs to place on their own.
It is not my place to tell you what your "voice" should be. That is for you to decide.
Nor should anyone NOT make their "voice" on the matter heard because someone else thinks it's "wrong".
In this election there is the Democratic process. It is the forum for the people to place their votes and make their opinions heard and control the government that is set up "for the people, by the people".
In this election there were initiatives on multiple ballots concerning Marriage and the new hot topic of "Gay Marriage" which was thrust upon the nation by courts in certain parts of some states.
It is important that the voice of the people NOT be silenced regardless of your opinion. In a democracy, all votes count. It is wrong to say that those who oppose gay marriage shouldn't have voted against it because "you say so". That is not democracy and is akin to saying, "Gays shouldn't have the right to vote".
In the election, the voice of the people in those areas were of varying majorities in approving Heterosexual Marriage only as per the traditions and laws of the country from it's founding until present.
You may disagree with their view, but that is the democratic process.
I find it interesting that many cried foul over the 2000 election because the candidate that carried the "Popular" vote, didn't win the election and that it was "stolen" from them.
Now we have a "Majority" vote on the definition of Marriage and Marriage Law, but we dispute it.
Democracy didn't fail in this election. It suceeded in forwarding the wishes of the people for representation in government of their views. You can't discard democracy because it doesn't "fall your way".
If your view fails in a democracy it's very bad to blame the "other side" for their views instead of blaming yourself for your lack of understanding of their reasoning.
Many factors may have contributed to the election's results.
My feeling is that it is the reaction of the people through democracy in response to the attempted hijack of democracy by certain courts in the last year.
If you voted for Gore and feel the Supreme Court "robbed" you of your vote in 2000, you may get a sense of what Social Conservatives have felt the last year in regards to Marriage Preservation on paper at least. Look at the last couple of years of Judicial outcomes with regards to Social Conservatism to see what has forged the vote results you have before you.
Trying to force the beliefs of the minority upon those of the majority without compromise and without respect for that opposition gets you this election outcome. Will CONTINUE to get this kind of election outcome.
If you bet it all, you stand to lose it all. In this past year all of it has been bet, and all of it was lost.
When you stand at the end of the day and have nothing to show for it, and maybe even less than you had to begin with (at least some open mindedness vs. polarizing your opposition against you) maybe settling for equal "Civil Unions" instead of trying to force "Gay Marriage" would have been the way to go.
But make no mistake about it. If you have a vast populace, that is the majority in some places and you spit in their faces and try to force your views upon their government, when it comes time for those you spit on to make their voice known, don't be suprised if all the "compromise" that may have been available earlier is gone.
So now there's a choice. We can go to "war" so to speak and volley back and forth until you force your views upon the people (as happened in the Civil War, in which the North won, but it took 100 years for blacks to become equal citizens due to the backlash, and it was horrible backlash for 100 years.) which breeds a "hatred" that no one wants.
Or there can be a respect for the views of the opposition and a compromise. A way for you to get what you want and the opposition to get what they want.
For the voice of both sides to be counted and respected and instituted.
But make no mistake about it. Democracy worked in this election as it should.
This is just my opionion, so blast away.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It is wrong to say that those who oppose gay marriage shouldn't have voted against it because 'you say so.'"
Who here is saying that? Most of the people saying that others should not have voted against gay marriage have offered some very concrete reasons for that claim.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
You neglected to mention the U.S. Constitution, which can be used to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.
Because, face it...about 95% of the population is stupid.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Or there can be a respect for the views of the opposition and a compromise. A way for you to get what you want and the opposition to get what they want.
Some views are so anathema to me that I can't compromise with them. I'm sorry to say that your own view on this topic is one such.
Let's face it, not all political views are morally acceptable. David Duke's aren't. It just depends on where you draw the line. "Bigoted" may be the wrong word, but it's just not right to make concessions to a position that is (as I see it) flat-out immoral.
Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :
quote: When you stand at the end of the day and have nothing to show for it, and maybe even less than you had to begin with (at least some open mindedness vs. polarizing your opposition against you) maybe settling for equal "Civil Unions" instead of trying to force "Gay Marriage" would have been the way to go.
The part that really makes me angry is not that "Gay Marriage" is forbidden, it's that some of the laws that passed practically forbade anything even remotely LIKE marriage. So basically, they're saying, "No marriage for you gays, and nothing like it either!!!!"
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Let's face it, not all political views are morally acceptable. David Duke's aren't. It just depends on where you draw the line. "Bigoted" may be the wrong word, but it's just not right to make concessions to a position that is (as I see it) flat-out immoral.
And you in that paragraph summed up the exact sentiments of the opposition towards your views and led to the election results you now have through the democratic process.
Continuing to have the same "attitude" you have will continue to get the same "attitude" in response. If you don't like the outcome of the election, try approaching the problem with an open mind.
Force will only get you force in return.
As for the term "bigot".
And remember that the constitution in reality, and in all honesty ANY government exists at the whim of the people. The constitution wasn't a socialist/communistic document forced upon an unwilling populace majority.
It was ratified by the majority before it was accepted and if the majority ever feels it no longer serves their needs, it can and will be removed, changed, etc. through ammendments etc.
Those who cling to a 200 year old document while spiting on it's founding principles, are not far from spitting on it itself.
There is room and opportunity for both sides to get what they want, or we can go on fighting and one side will lose more than they currently have.
A "war" so to speak will hurt both sides. I personally don't want to see years and years of hurt, anger, disenfranchisement, etc. and polarization.
[ November 04, 2004, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: CStroman ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Hey, I'll continue to stand up for what I believe, and they'll continue to do the same. May the best man win. I'm willing to be pragmatic about a lot of things, but not basic civil liberties.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Hey, I'll continue to stand up for what I believe, and they'll continue to do the same. May the best man win. I'm willing to be pragmatic about a lot of things, but not basic civil liberties.
If it's "All or nothing" as you state, then I hope my side wins as well, but realize that if they do, one side will be left with nothing.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
I would just like to say for the record, the United States is not a democracy. True democracy, according to Thomas Jefferson, is "tyranny of the majority".
The United States is a republic, whose job it is to protect the minority from the abuse and oppression of the majority. We are bound by the Constitution to not pass laws that infringe upon the rights of the minority, no matter what the majority thinks about it. These bans of same sex marriage are not Constitutional.
Posted by Troubadour (Member # 83) on :
One of the things I personally find ironic with regards to the American 'morality' movement is the massive weighting of sexuality in the moral conciousness.
An example of this is the region one edit of "Dawn of the Dead". A naked zombie chick is edited out of the film - by splattering a gory mess over the area of the screen showing her breasts.
It seems that violence barely makes it into the moral viewpoint, but there's an uber-sensitivity to anything vaguely sexual...
Which most of the western world finds utterly baffling.... Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:The wise Frisco told us: You neglected to mention the U.S. Constitution, which can be used to protect the minority from the whims of the majority.
I was going to pop in and say this, but a couple of you already have! Excellent.
I think gay marriage is a civil rights issue, not a matter for the majority to decide on based on individual senses of morality. The courts need to decide whether or not homosexuality is a natural state (or a choice) and need to decide what the implications are on the rights issues gays are fighting for.
The Constitution does need to protect the minorities. And sometimes what's fair and consistent don't match some people's wishes or moral standards.
All that and I don't think it's very moral to restrict homosexuals from many basic partner-rights at all.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Troubadour, my experience is that showing sex is attractive to most people, and violence is not. Generally, when a person looks at sex, the response (on some level) is, "Ooooh, I want to do that". Conversely, most people seeing violence (if it is realistic) respond with "Yuck! I hope that never happens to me!" It seems natural that film would treat two subjects with such different responses differently, even though both are regarded as immoral.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
Chad, you and I are about as far apart on this issue as we can be. But (if it isn't too impertinant to say) I can see you are making a concerted effort to say it in a way that permits discourse, as opposed to other ways it could be done.
I really, really appreciate the concession. I see it, and I note it.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
If you were to replace 'Gay' in 'Gay Marriage' to 'inter-racial' would these bans be acceptable? I don't think they would be. So why is it acceptable with 'gay'? In my mind race and sexual orientation are both not chosen attributes. They are just part of a person's being. To discriminate based on either is just wrong.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
The secret to this debate is to try and decipher why the other side disagrees with you.
If you ask someone why they are passionate about banning gay marriages by law, they won't talk about sin or homosexuality.
They talk about Liberal Activist Judges.
The whole Gay Marriage Ban is a ploy by non-Christian Republicans to get good Christian's to vote for them--the Wolf in Shepherds Clothing routine.
The second and more deadly assault of this ploy will fall when impartial judges void these laws as being illegal. They go against previous laws or federal constitutional standards.
The people who voted for these laws will be whipped up into a frenzy by the Wolves. They will not accept the judical responses. Those judges will face removal, or new, political judges will be put in place--truly activist judges who will not get in the way of thier politcal wolf bosses.
Some will call for the entire judicial system to be torn down. If that were to happen the check and balance system set up 200+ years ago will be threatened.
All so these wolves can consolidate their power and become the emporers they believe themselves to be.
Mean while, those who would fight this destruction are distracted and confused by the obvious gay issue. The middle will call for Civil Unions and others will talk of Separate but Equal.
That all doesn't matter.
This is not an attack on the Gay community.
It is an attack, a successful attack, on the legal system. The soldiers in this army think they are defending Christ and Church and morality.
What they are doing is attacking the courts and helping the least Christian amongst us--those who use the church for their own worldly ends.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
*sigh*
I wrote something along the lines that follow on another thread, but I think the dynamics are more complex than are being acknowledged by fellow supporters of same-sex couples entering into legally-recognized marriages.
This issue hit the nonpolitical heterosexual community pretty much by surprise. First, with a court decision in Massachussetts.
But there was a second wave as well - this was followed by announcements by the mayors of more than one city that current definitions of "marriage" would be ignored, resulting in a huge parade of same-sex couples getting married. Those who were troubled by the idea of same-sex marriage saw this as an assault on the law as well.
Was it really so hard to see the backlash that would result? These referendums were passed by HUGE majorities and can't be laid at the doorstep of just one segment of the religious community. While it would be nice to think that people can accept radical change in a short time, it's unrealistic. Just ask the African-American community about their (cough) "overnight" successes in outlawing school segregation and Jim Crow laws in general.
The reason I bring this up is that I think the most useful thing one can do as an advocate for change is to look critically at one's own tactics and how they may have contributed to setbacks. It's the only way to keep from repeating failed approaches and strategies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Amen, brother!
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I suppose you're right, Steve. Change always takes time. It's just frustrating to live in an age when people haven't yet realized what's just and unjust.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The "age when people haven't yet realized what's just and unjust" has extended from the beginning of civilization and will only close when the last person disappears from the Earth.
Dagonee
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Dan, I have real trouble with seeing the judicial system as the fall guy in this. I actually think one reason the country is in trouble is because judges do not feel responsible to the people. I have begun thinking of the Supreme Court as the Oligarchy of Nine....once appointed, they are responsible to nothing and no one. I read every now and then about the horror of the "President-for-Life", but no one cares about "Justices-for-Life".
Don't get me wrong. I understand why the justices are selected the way they are and do not serve for a set term. But justices are perfectly capable of being partisan on their own without any help from voters or parties, and there seems to be little check on their power.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The only check on the supreme court is death.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Both of you point out the goal of the neo-cons. They can't take over the Supreme Court easilly with their spin and politicing, so they spread the idea that it is a totoletarian dictatorship out of the hands of the people.
Well, ITS SUPPOSED TO BE OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!!!!!
The power of the people can and will be corrupted by people like Karl Rove.
So what is the power of the Surpreme Court that we are so fearful of? What armies do they control? What laws do they pass? What money do they give or take away?
None.
They take the law that is given to them and determine its value, as they see it.
If a law is passed that undermines the rights of a few, they say that is wrong and the law is removed.
That is their dangerous power that Anti-Activists are scaring people with. They want these legal representatives to be nothing more than elected officials who owe their jobs and their futures to their political party or their political bosses.
You say that it is dangerous to have judges for life? I say that it is more dangerous to have judges in debt to political power brokers, who have their jobs for life, and don't have the publicity that Judges do.
Posted by SeeDKing (Member # 6998) on :
quote: The reason I bring this up is that I think the most useful thing one can do as an advocate for change is to look critically at one's own tactics and how they may have contributed to setbacks. It's the only way to keep from repeating failed approaches and strategies.
This goes right along with what I was saying in another thread.
The Gay Marriage issue failed because it was handled as Gay Marriage. By defining your issues based on sexual prefference, and a religious pact (marriage), then you have already polarized voters, and the majority is not on your side.
The issue here needs to be handled as civil rights infringements in the cases of property and custody laws. Because those are the actual issues at hand.
If you want to argue that religion and sexual prefference should not be a factor when it comes to civil liberties, then you have to define the laws in a way that exclude those also.
By calling for "Gay Marriage" you have just asked for sexual preference and religious ceremony to be brought into the law... granted marriage already is a lawful contract, which means you also need to deal with the definition of marriage or get rid of it completely, but you still cannot ask for equal rights for the individual if you are setting up the individual in the law as seperate from society.
HOWEVER
I still say you then have to take a long hard look at what the consequences of changing the institute of marriage to include same sex partners (not just couples, because this would apply to any two people who wish to own something together regardless of their sexuality or love for one another) will have on society over time.
edit: clarifying my ADD riddled text
[ November 04, 2004, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: SeeDKing ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote:(not just couples, because this would apply to any two people who wish to own something together regardless of their sexuality or love for one another)
I think this is has no weight in a discussion of gay marriage. There are already man-woman marriages of convenience, and the law tries hard to find them out (re: Sara asking Tom for affirmation as to her own split-country marriage). Why this would suddenly changes things in that venue seems unclear to me. Unlikely, in fact.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The funny thinbg is, "Gay Marriage" mainly has been portrayed as religious by conservatives. No liberal has advocated forcing any religion to accept gay unions as marriages in their terms. The courts (yes, even that darned Goodrich Decision up here in MA) have been clear that the extension of marriage rights is only within the areas where the government provides tangible legal benefits, aka legal marriage.
So I think it says more about how conservatives are casting this issue themselves, than anything liberals are doing.
-Bok
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
SeeDKing:
I would agree with you on the marriage thing EXCEPT, Bob Barr from Georgia is the one that tied Civil Unions (which was what the Gay community was shooting for in 1996) to Gay Marriage. HE is the one that politicized and demonized it in order to push his Anti Gay agenda. DOMA anyone? Barr was the author.
The term "Gay Marriage" first surfaced in 1996 in response to Vermont's Civil Union legislation. Bob Barr of Georgia and several other "conservative" legislators used to the team to negatively politicize Vermont's legal initiative and pass the Defense of Marriage Act of 1997.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My problem is with definitions and clarity. The most frustrating thing about the gay marriage issue, for me, is the use of the word marriage. The vast majority of history has treated marriage as a one man/one woman issue. When I bring this up, invariably people will jump on me and list a dozen different types of situations throughout history where marriage didn't necessarily consist of one man and one woman. The problem with this line of logic is that the majority rules, not the minority. Even if you could convince me that 30% of the people on Earth had a union that consisted of something besides one man and one woman, and I seriously doubt you could, it still wouldn't change the fact that the general usage of the word marriage has been one man/one woman.
Yes, the Constitution protects the rights of the minority from the majority. All that says is that the gays are welcome to have unions and call them marriages. What it does NOT say is that the majority has to concede and call them marriages too. The Constitution gives gays the right, as far as I can see, to form legal unions, share property, and so forth, but it can not force the American people to refer to those unions with any word that they do not choose. Calling them carnivals or dance parties or sleepovers does not infringe upon the rights of the gay community.
Marriage is a word in the English language. Up until very recently, it clearly referred to a one man, one woman type of union. Changing it to include many different types of unions does not give those unions more power, it only lessens the effectiveness of the word. Calling a man that dates your mother "Daddy" is your prerogative, but don't be surprised when people get confused. Telling the guy that paints your house that you want it purple when what you really want is red is up to you, but don't get mad at him with you look outside and your house isn't red. Begging the painter to relabel all his red paint as purple doesn't help anyone. All it does is make a person have to work harder when describing what color they want their house.
"I want the house to be purple." "Do you mean the purple at the low-frequency end of the spectrum?" "No, I want the high-frequency purple."
If you had just left red as red, it wouldn't have changed a bit of it's attractiveness. And you could have just said "purple" when asking for your paint color.
Make up a word for gay unions. I don't care what it is. Using a different word for clarity's sake doesn't change anything about the union.
And even changing the definition of the word marriage in the dictionary to include gay unions doesn't change what the majority of history has used it for.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Bok, absolutely. It is only those rights and priviledges that go along with marriage that is important right now. There are plenty of mainstream churches that perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples that, within their community, are as binding as powerful spiritually and socially as marriages performed for men and women. That will never change because the law can't touch the content of a religious ceremony.
And I don't think blaming the liberals for their how they present their message is fair. For something to be considered "illegal" I would think it would ahve to stand up to some level of scrutiny that could show in some manner the harm or damages done by that act.
In all the dogma about preventing gay 'marriage' and things that LOOK like marriage, I have yet to see one bit of proof of how any of the currently married gay couples (from the religious marriages that have happened for a while or the more recently "legal" ones that happened in Mass. and SF) has in any way harmed an existing married couple or the institution of marriage. Not a whit. Are there any other victimless laws that have such a low threshold of proof? There are many pro-gun advocates who chafe at any suggestion of more gun control, even though SOME unintentional harm will happen eventually in an armed society. There are statistics that show people being hurt by their own guns but the level doesn't rise, in their opinion, to the level of concern that needs more laws. Drug legalization folks say the same thing. Sure people get addicted to illegal drugs but there are plenty more marijuana users who never get addicted.
And these are contested with acknowledged harm.
There is absolutely no real cost to Americans if a gay couple can have shared custody of a child. There is no additional cost to society if a gay married couple shares job benefits (no more cost than a male/female marriage, that is). There is no cost to society if a gay man has the ability to make decisions about his spouses medical care in times of need. There are no new/additional costs to society if a gay man can inherit his spouses money after he passes away (again, no more/less than a male/female married couple).
Has a marriage ever broken up because a gay couple down the street got married? Are less people getting male/female marriages because two women around the block decided they wanted to get hitched?
Can anyone point out any real costs to this? I don't mean "what ifs" or "straw man" arguments that can't be proved. Clearly people feel some threat or they wouldn't have turned out in record numbers to restrict a fellow citizen's rights.
Though pro-choice with regards to abortion, I can at least see how if someone considers a bundle of cells a human life how they could see it as murder. I can see the harm in it. I can see the harm it could cause a pregnant woman, both physically and socially and emotionally. It is why I am so torn on the issue (pro-life for self along with my spouse but don't feel I can speak for society on this).
But with gay marriage I can't BEGIN to fathom how there is any known harm for such a situation.
Please, honestly, someone tell me the real, quantifiable harm of two men or two women getting married in all legal senses of the word (religous aside as that is strictly personal).
Thanks,
fil
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Marriage is a word in the English language. Up until very recently, it clearly referred to a one man, one woman type of union."
This is not in fact the case. In fact, I have a book from the 1600s which refers to the marriage of two pieces of wood.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Minority doesn't rule, Tom.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:Marriage is a word in the English language. Up until very recently, it clearly referred to a one man, one woman type of union
PSI, speaking of English, I don't know many words in our confusing language that has only one definition. "Marriage" isn't a color with a limited definition (and then, even "Red" or "Purple" have a ton of definitions beyond their color descriptions..."Red China" doesn't refer to the color of their flag alone nor does "Purple prose" refer to the color of the print...). There can be a marriage of two ideas (chocolate and peanut butter), a marriage of card in penochle (did I spell that correctly) or a marriage of two people. Please tell me a time that the English language became a static one. Honestly, do tell.
If it is the language issue alone I could argue that while knowing that at least the people in "marriages" were having the same rights as those men and women in marriages. But the fact is a number of these amendments went the step further and said that things that LOOK like marriage are also not recognized. Civil Unions or Wacky Association, whatever the name the conservatives took a giant step beyond simply "historical definitions."
fil
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Saying that red has different uses doesn't change the fact that it would be very confusing to start calling purple "red". Yes, many of our words have different uses in different contexts. Yes, English is a pain in the butt to learn. But to use one word to refer to two legally similar things as if they were exactly the same doesn't help anyone.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"But to use one word to refer to two legally similar things as if they were exactly the same doesn't help anyone."
I think the point, PSI, is that they would be legally exactly the same, which is why they would both be addressed by the same legal term.
I suspect that your problem is not the terminology, but the concept of legal sameness.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I can't see how a person's genitals make the difference. How is that the absolute? Does every marriage require consummation? No. Does every marriage require birth children? No. How about love? Nope (see arranged marriages and marriages where they don't divorce for the children's sake). But genitals? You think that because you don't have a penis but your partner does, that THAT's important?
Really?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Help me out, then. Legally, men and women are the same thing? Saying that they have the same rights doesn't equate to saying that they are exactly the same.
Suneun, are you talking to me? Or just anyone who doesn't support gay marriage? I thought by now everyone would have guessed that I don't believe that sex is only related to anatomy.
[ November 04, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Then for the purposes of this argument, define sex/gender for me. I know gender's come up, but I don't remember your specific take.
I think the point of the matter is, why this one deciding factor when so many other things aren't absolute when it comes to marriage?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
PSI, the problem is that the word has been codified in our LAW as a legal, tangible thing. Were it so that we could go back and make sure that those who put marriage on the law books had used something more neutral!
The liberals aren't trying to change YOUR definition of marriage, PSI. At worse they are trying to modify an existing sub-definition, pertaining to a very particular context (the law of the United States of America).
-Bok
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
quote: My problem is with definitions and clarity. The most frustrating thing about the gay marriage issue, for me, is the use of the word marriage. The vast majority of history has treated marriage as a one man/one woman issue. When I bring this up, invariably people will jump on me and list a dozen different types of situations throughout history where marriage didn't necessarily consist of one man and one woman.
Really?
Irish Times, August 11, 1998 Dublin, Ireland
When Marriage Between Gays Was a Rite
As the churches struggle with the issue of homosexuality, a long tradition of gay marriage indicates that the Christian attitude towards same sex unions may not always have been as "straight" as is now suggested, writes Jim Duffy.
Opinion: Rite and Reason by Jim Duffy
A Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman pronubus (best man) overseeing what in a standard Roman icon would be the wedding of a husband and wife. In the icon, Christ is the pronubus. Only one thing is unusual. The "husband and wife" are in fact two men.
Is the icon suggesting that a homosexual "marriage" is one sanctified by Christ? The very idea seems initially shocking. The full answer comes from other sources about the two men featured, St. Serge and St. Bacchus, two Roman soldiers who became Christian martyrs.
While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly close. Severus of Antioch in the sixth century explained that "we should not separate in speech [Serge and Bacchus] who were joined in life". More bluntly, in the definitive 10th century Greek account of their lives, St. Serge is openly described as the "sweet companion and lover" of St. Bacchus.
In other words, it confirms what the earlier icon implies, that they were a homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was openly accepted by early Christian writers. Furthermore, in an image that to some modern Christian eyes might border on blasphemy, the icon has Christ himself as their pronubus, their best man overseeing their "marriage".
The very idea of a Christian homosexual marriage seems incredible. Yet after a twelve year search of Catholic and Orthodox church archives Yale history professor John Boswell has discovered that a type of Christian homosexual "marriage" did exist as late as the 18th century.
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has evolved as a concept and as a ritual.
Professor Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient church liturgical documents (and clearly separate from other types of non-marital blessings of adopted children or land) were ceremonies called, among other titles, the "Office of Same Sex Union" (10th and 11th century Greek) or the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These ceremonies had all the contemporary symbols of a marriage: a community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar, their right hands joined as at heterosexual marriages, the participation of a priest, the taking of the Eucharist, a wedding banquet afterwards. All of which are shown in contemporary drawings of the same sex union of Byzantine Emperor Basil I (867-886) and his companion John. Such homosexual unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th / early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (Geraldus Cambrensis) has recorded.
Unions in Pre-Modern Europe lists in detail some same sex union ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century "Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union", having invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, called on God to "vouchsafe unto these Thy servants [N and N] grace to love another and to abide unhated and not cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".
Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple having their right hands laid on the Gospel while having a cross placed in their left hands. Having kissed the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.
Boswell found records of same sex unions in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, Istanbul, and in Sinai, covering a period from the 8th to 18th centuries. Nor is he the first to make such a discovery. The Dominican Jacques Goar (1601-1653) includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek prayer books.
While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, it was only from about the 14th century that antihomosexual feelings swept western Europe. Yet same sex unions continued to take place.
At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope's parish church) in 1578 a many as 13 couples were "married" at Mass with the apparent cooperation of the local clergy, "taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together", according to a contemporary report.
Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century. Many questionable historical claims about the church have been made by some recent writers in this newspaper.
Boswell's academic study however is so well researched and sourced as to pose fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their attitudes towards homosexuality.
For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be a cowardly cop-out. The evidence shows convincingly that what the modern church claims has been its constant unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is in fact nothing of the sort.
It proves that for much of the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom from Ireland to Istanbul and in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a God-given ability to love and commit to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honoured and blessed both in the name of, and through the Eucharist in the presence of Jesus Christ.
Jim Duffy is a writer and historian.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Democracy didn't fail in this election. It suceeded in forwarding the wishes of the people for representation in government of their views. You can't discard democracy because it doesn't "fall your way".
If your view fails in a democracy it's very bad to blame the "other side" for their views instead of blaming yourself for your lack of understanding of their reasoning.
Was democracy working when overwhelming majorities supported the oppression of blacks in the south?
No - "success" is not just a matter of the most popular side winning. It is a matter of the BEST side winning. If the majority picks the wrong side, then democracy is failing, even though the people have spoken. That is why having wise and educated voters is critical for a functioning democracy. If voters are wrong, the wrong ideas will become the law, and democracy will fail.
This is why America is not a complete democracy. We are a combination of a democracy, an aristocracy, and a rule by constitutional law. The people cannot decide all things, and often certain branches of government overrule the people, and sometimes even the Constitution itself can overrule the wishes of the people.
And if one side doesn't win in a democracy then the other side IS to blame. After all, if the other side wasn't there voting against you, your side would have won!
[ November 04, 2004, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I guess partly because it's one thing that's been more or less concrete. Yeah, there have been some things that have been different in some ways; some people have mention communes or similar, but the one man, one woman has been pretty consistent, as much as it could have been.
As far as gender is concerend, I believe God created man and woman to be counterparts for each other, and that their anatomy is just a physical expression of that. But I can't force people to believe that.
I really do get irked at the issue of clarity. People don't want to offend others. I understand that. But you can't change everything just because I few people are upset. If only one person in all of America believed that gay unions should be called marriages, should we go along with their whims? Is one person's opinion enough to change something big? How about five people? Against everyone else in the country? Do we change a language to make them happy? Do we stop using the word automobile because five people in America don't like it? What about fifty? How many people does it take to justify changing something that is very important to most people?
In my opinion, it takes the majority.
Bookwyrm: Not only did you not absorb my whole post, you didn't even read the entire piece you quoted.
The minority does not rule. List five thousand homosexual unions and you still haven't shown me a majority, or even a tiny fraction.
[ November 04, 2004, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
PSI, it's worth noting that what to call these unions is in fact the least important aspect of the whole discussion. None of the amendments recently passed permitted gay unions under some other name, because that's not the bit people care about.
What people want to make sure is that gays can't have relationships as respected or as valued by society as straights.
------
If I were the only agnostic in the whole country, PSI, do you believe you would have the right to force me to pray to your god?
[ November 04, 2004, 01:58 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
The majority does not get to decide to legally discriminate against a minority. It just doesn't. In time, people will look back at this and shake their heads about how sad it all was, just like we do now when we look back at our former legal discrimination against blacks.
It's just a matter of time.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Tom, what am I forcing the gays to do?
Vana, how am I trying to legally discriminate against the gays?
[ November 04, 2004, 02:07 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
PSI:
Yes I DID absorb your post. And I HAVE read that article and many other like is in their entirety.
The change was rapid. In England in the 12th century there were no laws against Jews and they occupied prominent positions, but by the end of the 13th century, sleeping with a Jew was equated with sleeping with an animal or with murder, and in France Jews, according to St. Louis, were to be killed on the spot if they questioned the Christian faith. During this time there are many popular diatribes against gay people as well, suggesting that they molest children, violate natural law, are bestial? and bring harm to nations which tolerate them. Within a single century. between the period of 1250 and 1350, almost every European state passed civil laws demanding death for a single homosexual act. This popular reaction affected Christian theology a great deal. Throughout the 12th century homosexual relations, had, at worst, been comparable to heterosexual fornication for married people, and, at best, not sinful at all. During the 13th century, because of this popular reaction, writers like Thomas Aquinas tried to portray homosexuality as one of the very worst sins, second only to murder.
It is very difficult to describe how this came about. St. Thomas tried to show that homosexuality was opposed to nature in some way, the most familiar objection being that nature created sexuality for procreation and using it for any other purpose would violate nature. Aquinas was much too smart for this argument. In the Summa Contra Gentiles he asks, "Is it sinful to walk on your hands when nature intended them for something else?" No, indeed it is not sinful, so he shifted ground. This is obviously not the reason that homosexuality is sinful; he looks for another. First he tried arguing that homosexuality must be sinful because it impedes the reproduction of the human race. But this argument also failed, for, Aquinas noted in the Summa Theologica, "a duty may be of two sorts: it may be enjoined on the individual as a duty which cannot be ignored without sin, or it may be enjoined upon a group. In the latter cases no one individual is obligated to fulfill the duty. The commandment regarding procreation applies to the human race as a whole! which is obligated to increase physically. It is therefore sufficient for the race if some people undertake to reproduce physically." Moreover, Aquinas admitted in the Summa Theologica that homosexuality was absolutely natural to certain individuals and therefore inculpable. In what sense, then, could he argue that it was unnatural? In a third place he concedes that the term "natural" in fact has no moral significance, but it is simply a term applied to things which are strongly disapproved of. "Homosexuality," he says, "is called 'the unnatural vice' by the common people, and hence it may be said to be unnatural." This was not an invention of Aquinas'. It was a response to popular prejudices of the time. It did not derive its authority from the Bible or from any previous tradition of Christian morality, but it eventually became part of Catholic theological thought. These attitudes have remained basically unchanged because there has been no popular support for change in the matter. The public has continued to feel hostility to gay people and the church has been under no pressure to reexamine the origins of its teachings on homosexuality.
It is possible to change ecclesiastical attitudes toward gay people and their sexuality because the objections to homosexuality are not biblical, they are not consistent, they are not part of Jesus' teaching; and they are not even fundamentally Christian. It is possible because Christianity was indifferent, if not accepting, of gay people and their feelings for a longer period of time than it had been hostile to them. It is possible because the founders of the religion specifically considered love to transcend accidents of biology and to be the end, not the means. It may not be possible to eradicate intolerance from secular society, for intolerance is, to some extent ineradicable; but I believe the church's attitude can and must be changed. It has been different in the past and it can be again. Plato observed of secular society nearly 2,400 years ago that "wherever it has been established that it is shameful to be involved in homosexual relationships, this is due to evil on the part of the legislatures, to despotism on the part of the rulers and to cowardism on the part of the governed."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom, what am I forcing the gays to do?"
Well, you're resigning them to thankless, under-the-table relationships, for one part.
But I understand the distinction you're trying to make: that you aren't forcing someone to do something, but rather not permitting someone to do something. And you believe that there is a major distinction.
To this, I reply only that we should really remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Do you agree?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The piece I was referring to was the piece of my post that you quoted.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
What am I not permitting them to do?
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
Not you, PSI, not specifically. I'm not talking about the language - I'm not that concerned about the language. What I wrote was directly in response to the original post, actually. Sorry for just jumping in, I didn't meant to cause confusion.
My whole point is that this is a civil rights issue, a discrimination issue, and not truly a semantics issue. As often happens, I think the words are mostly just getting in the way of what's really happening here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What am I not permitting them to do?"
Legally enter into an agreement called marriage, in this specific case. "You" being a rather broad term, of course.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm not stopping them from calling it marriage. I'm just refusing to do it myself, and refusing to let them force other Americans to call it that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. Where do you see that they are forcing other Americans to call it that, except in legal documents?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
So in the end, what it boils down to is that gays want us to agree to the word marriage on legal documents, and I want them to agree to some other word. Are we then imposing on each other's rights? Or are no rights being infringed upon at all?
[ November 04, 2004, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So in the end, what it boils down to is that gays want us to agree to the word marriage on legal documents...."
Except that the majority of gays, as I understand it, are not in fact demanding this.
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
The arguments for "marriage" all have a failing. It is different. Regardless of whether you awknowledge it or not, I could care less. The fact is, it's different.
"Separate but Equal" is the goal that should be out there.
There are MEN and there are WOMEN LEGALLY. We differentiate between them. Are they legally EQUAL? Yes, but does that make Men/woman and vice versa? No.
We have Blacks and we have Hispanics and we have Whites.
Are White people Blacks? Would there be a problem of me, being white, claiming I was black in order to gain preferrential treatment in the discriminatory laws on the books that favor Blacks? Yes there would. The fact remains, I'm not Black.
Marriage is between a man and woman and in this country has always been.
We have this "new" Homosexual clamor not for "Equal rights" as married couples, but to be "married couples".
They are suing to be called Black when they are White instead of just wanting the same rights as Blacks.
You have as a fact, the majority of the population in this country that defines marriage as between a Man and Woman only. That is the LAW. That is the FACT of marriage.
Homosexuality is not Heterosexuality or vice versa. Otherwise the term wouldn't exist. There would be no such thing as Gay or Straight.
So for the last time:
Marriage is the civily recognized union between a man and woman. Period. That's the fact. That is the law.
_________ is the civily recognized union between a man and a man or woman and a woman.
I can claim I'm tall till I'm blue in the face, but there's the undeniable fact that I'm not.
Just because some choose to be "blind" to the factual difference doesn't mean it factually doesn't exist.
I find it ironic that the people arguing "for" this use terms such as "Gay/Strait" "Heterosexual/Homosexual" but then claim, "it's not different".
It's factually false.
Saying Gays deserve the same "rights" as married couples is one thing and I support it.
Saying Gays deserve to be classified as "married" when they don't fit the factual definition of the term, is what everyone should have a problem with.
There is room for both views to be represented. As long as the other side is unwilling to give respect to that dissenting opinion, I think it asenine to expect that same resect in return.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I can agree to some legal union for gays that equals marriage, but I cannot agree to legally referring to it as such. But every time I say this, everyone goes, "Cheers! Civil Unions for everyone!" which to me is exactly the same as referring to both as marriage.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"'Separate but Equal' is the goal that should be out there."
How sad. I never thought someone on this forum would actually admit it.
quote: But every time I say this, everyone goes, "Cheers! Civil Unions for everyone!" which to me is exactly the same as referring to both as marriage.
So, to you, the important thing is to make sure that gays never get too uppity and starting thinking of their relationships as "real" ones, just as good as yours? That the point isn't that we need to protect the word "marriage," but that we simply can't call gay unions the same thing legally as heterosexual unions -- even if we gave them the same rights -- because the distinction itself is necessary to keep them in their place?
[ November 04, 2004, 02:28 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: Except that the majority of gays, as I understand it, are not in fact demanding this.
That is absolutely not true. I have to actually question how many homosexuals you come in contact with on a regular basis. (I'm not being rude just stating facts).
I have several close family members, friends, co-workers who are gay. I wish what you said was true, but I have not found that to be the case.
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
If I understand you correctly, PSI, you would be okay with:
1) civil unions for male-male or female-female partnerships 2) civil unions for female-male partnerships, if that was what they chose 3) marriages for female-male partnerships, if they chose
Nobody would be forced to call civil unions "marriages," and nobody would be forced to call marriages "civil unions."
Is this right?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*grin* My brother is gay. My uncle is gay, and has been in a monogamous relationship for nearly 30 years. I have at least three gay friends from childhood, four gay coworkers I know well, and at least three people on Hatrack here. And I'm not even getting into acquaintances, mind you.
And even my uncle, who's living in Michigan, would be perfectly happy with the term "civil union." In fact, my own stance on that -- which is that if you're going to create civil unions at all, you should eliminate marriages altogether -- is one he considers radical and unlikely. But I'm more hopeful than he is.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Actually, I really just think they are seperate things that deserve seperate terms. I'm not refusing to call them human. I just don't believe that what they do fits the definition of marriage. Call it share-age. Call it whatever. But legally recognized gay unions are a new concept in America and it makes more sense to give a new concept a new title rather then trying to cram it in with something else.
Sara: Um, let me think. I'm hesitant to use the term civil union for the purpose of this discussion because it already has a meaning, but I suppose what I would be okay with is a civil union for anyone who wants it, but a civil union between heterosexual people would be defined as marriage, whereas a civil union between homosexual people would be called something else, a word that has not yet been invented because it has never been legally recognized.
[ November 04, 2004, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
quote: 'Separate but Equal' is the goal that should be out there."
How sad. I never thought someone on this forum would actually admit it.
So am I safe to assume Thom that you are opposed to the terms "Man" and "Woman" or racial "Black", "White" or "Hispanic/Latino"?
Or Minor or Adult?
Whether Tom awknowledges facts seems to be the issue here.
Do you or do you not recognize the difference between Men/Women, Races, Minors/Adults, Gay/Straight?
Posted by CStroman (Member # 6872) on :
Tom you listed One person of the many who agreed with your stance. It's not a pissing contest, but find out what the others want.
Same Rights or being called Married?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So am I safe to assume Thom that you are opposed to the terms 'Man' and 'Woman' or racial 'Black,' 'White' or 'Hispanic/Latino?'"
Where there is a functional reason to make the distinction in legal terminology, I think the terms are useful. However, there is a reason that our law refers to "citizens," "people," etc., except where it specifically refers to a smaller subset of that population. Unless we intend for a law to only refer to "white men," it would be a mistake for us to have a law written "white men are permitted to park on the square at...."
If we have a law creating homosexual unions that are functionally identical to heterosexual unions, then there is no legal or semantic reason to differentiate between the two unions.
The only reason to create a semantic distinction between these legal terms would be if you intended to introduce legal distinctions. Do you?
------
Chad, I said "even my uncle." This does not mean that only my uncle is happy with civil unions; it means that even my uncle, who is perhaps the one you might most expect to demand full and equivalent "marriage" given his own relationship status, does not expect or demand it.
[ November 04, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
Oh, thank goodness. Tom, you said what I was trying to figure out how to say. Thank you.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I have to back out for the time being to give my kids a tubby. : )
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
quote: Do you or do you not recognize the difference between Men/Women, Races, Minors/Adults, Gay/Straight?
I recognize the difference between my male friends/family and me.
I recognize the difference between my white friends and me.
I recognized as a child that I was different than adults and likewise, now that I'm technically an adult, I recognize the differences between myself and children.
I even recognize the difference between myself and my homosexual friends.
However, I do not recognize any justice in being treated differently than men. I do not recognize justice in being treated differently than people of other races. As a child, other than restrictions placed on me (which were equally placed on ages, not on any other factor) such as movie viewing, driving, voting, I didn't see justice in being treated differently than adults and now I don't treat children differently than I want to be treated. And so, with homosexuals, I don't see any justice in treating them as different. To me it's like treating someone different because they like a different sports team or style of music; they're still people but heaven forbid they favor something I don't. They should get the same basic rights regardless of their sexual orientation.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
One question and I'm really out: Do you believe that calling them homosexuals and us heterosexuals is treating them differently? Should we all just be called sexuals?
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
When sexuality isn't relevant, I don't think we should be referring to it. When it is, I think we should make semantic discriminations insofar as appropriate.
When I talk to kids, I refer to people as "sexual beings" while referring to sexuality but not to genders in particular. e.g., "As sexual beings, attraction to others comes up in all sorts of relationships, and learning how to deal with that is a part of growing up.
Isn't this a common term? Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
If you're talking to me, PSI, then no, I don't think you need to drop the prefixes.
Rather, I was trying to say, despite the differences in titles, the treatment of the people should be the same.
Seperate but equal is not the same as equal. It wasn't for Afican-Americans early last century and it won't be now for homosexuals if that stance is taken.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Do you believe that calling them homosexuals and us heterosexuals is treating them differently?"
The issue is not whether we acknowledge that they are homosexuals and we are not. The issue is whether we wish to codify into the law the fact that their form of long-term relationship is substantially different in some way from our long-term relationships.
You do, for some reason. Something about our relationships is sufficiently different, in your opinion, from theirs that you do not want their relationships to be considered legally identical. You wish to maintain a legal distinction. To you, then, these relationships are not legally equal -- or equivalent. And presumably yours is better.
Which is, of course the flaw in the whole "separate but equal" logic in the first place.
For my part, I see no reason why a gay union differs in any real and substantial way -- again, for legal purposes -- from, say, a childless heterosexual union.
Posted by Uhleeuh (Member # 6803) on :
Err, I agree with what Sara said about appropriateness and such.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Do you believe that calling them homosexuals and us heterosexuals is treating them differently? Should we all just be called sexuals? "
Nope. They describe actual distinctions.
However, if two people live together, raise children together, are monogamous to each other, share finances, possess power of attorney over each other's affairs, may declare medical preferences for each other if the other is unable, and automatically inherit should the other die, that's something I would describe as a marriage.
The gender of the people involved is the least thing about it, in my opinion.
The way I see it, that's a civil union as far as the government is concerned. According to the churches (and, admittedly, the majority of Americans) that civil union is also a "marriage."
Should two gay people enter into that union, at that point whether or not it's a "marriage" is semantics. If it walks like a duck, etc.
Personally, I think gay activists should have avoided the word "marriage" entirely, even denied it if asked, and pushed solely for civil unions. If they got 'em, within two generations people would be calling it marriage anyway.
[ November 04, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:For my part, I see no reason why a gay union differs in any real and substantial way -- again, for legal purposes -- from, say, a childless heterosexual union.
Well, one is between a man and a woman and the other is between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. What's so not real and not substantial about that?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"for legal purposes"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"What's so not real and not substantial about that?"
From a legal standpoint, I'm not sure there's anything substantial about it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"Again, for legal purposes."
There is a real and substantial difference between a man and a woman working the same job, yet the law demands they receive equal compensation and opportunities.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Why not?
The only difference between what is legally relevant and what isn't is what we write in the law, and if we write in the law that there is a significant difference between "man and woman" and "man and man" then it becomes legally substantial. You're going to have to give a better reason than that - you need to say WHY it shouldn't be legally substantial, because it is completely within our power to make it legally substantial.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm not sure that discrimination works that way, Xap. In fact, I'm pretty sure the presumption is in the other direction: that unless there is a substantial demonstrated reason for a distinction, good law is written deliberately to avoid such distinctions -- if only to close potential loopholes.
What differences in legal treatment do you believe would be relevant enough to justify legal distinction between these two types of union?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Well, for one thing, people think of them very differently, and want to encourage/discourage them to different degrees. Why is that not sufficient?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So the primary reason for maintaining a legal distinction would be to promote and perpetuate societal discrimination against homosexual relationships?
[ November 04, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
Because people can't just decide to discrimnate against a group of people and expect the law to be okay with that!
Posted by SirReal (Member # 5257) on :
Amen Tom, The only reason I haven't chimed in here is because you have so elegently disected the argument and broken it down. You leave me with nothing substantial to add. Thank You for your logical and thoughtful insights.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So the primary reason for maintaining a legal distinction would be to promote and perpetuate societal discrimination against homosexual relationships?
Yes, I think that is fairly clear.
Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
And you think that's okay? You really do, Xap?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Julie, Tresopax wears the Xaposert hat when he wants to play Devil's Advocate. Posted by Vána (Member # 6593) on :
Oh. I didn't know that. I thought it was Tres (I was almost certain), but I didn't know why he sometimes uses the Xap name.
Sorry, Tres.
But, I there are people who really think that's okay - and I just can't understand it. Sorry for getting a bit emotional, though. It's been a rough couple of days.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Marriage is the civily recognized union between a man and woman. Period. That's the fact. That is the law.
_________ is the civily recognized union between a man and a man or woman and a woman.
The weakness in your big post on this, Chad, is that you quite casually shift from the realm of semantic definitions to the realm of legal definitions.
"Civilly recognized" anything can be called whatever the enabling statute (or court decision) says the anything is called.
Words, when used in the legal context, often do not have their common usage meaning. This is intentional and necessary, because the legal lexicon needs to be precise. The legal definition is often over- and under-inclusive of common usage. That is, some events that would be included in the word under common usage are excluded by the legal definition, and some events that would be excluded from the word under common usage are included by the legal definition. The same word can be defined very differently in different legal contexts, either by statute or judicial decision.
For example, "person" can include or exclude corporations, partnerships, and groups of persons with common associations. It can also include only adults over the age of 7, or 16, or 21, etc.
Marriage in some states can currently legally refer to those instituted via ceremony and license or by living together for 7 years in a co-habitive relationship. Yet in common usage, most people don't automatically include common law marriages.
If people do recognize such relationships as marriage, then they would have a different definition than some states do. If they choose to only recognize such a relationship as marriage if the state does, then they are adopting the legal definition. Either way, it is clear that the legal definition depends on the law, not how the word is commonly used.
Using common usage to attempt to show why a word can't mean something legally just doesn't work.
Your examples of differentiating by sex or race miss one crucial point: Such distinctions are made in the law ONLY when the distinction is LEGALLY meaningful. If a bill is protecting the rights of minorities, it might explicitly outlaw behavior that has a disparate impact on one or more races. BUT, absent such a legal necessity, people will general be refered to as people, not as "Whites, Blacks, Asians, and persons of all other races."
No one has ever been able to show me an example of a legal principle still in use today that depends on the presence of a man and woman in a marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I don't see any reason to consider a gay marriage worse than a straight marriage, myself.
But if many people do (and many people do!), why does their government have to endorse them both equally?
It seems to me like banning Marijuana but legalizing Alcohol. I, personally, see no significant difference between the two that would justify legalizing one and not the other, but many people apparently do. Yes, it will make Marijuana fans unhappy while Alcohol fans are happy, but why should I or anyone else get to say there is no distinction when clearly most people thinks there is?
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Those articles are fascinating, BookWyrm. Thanks for posting.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I have two different discussions going on that I am a part of right now and I can see that it would seem that I'm only arguing one, and very confusingly.
1. By asking about the homosexuals versus sexuals, I wanted to be sure that using terms that define people is not necessarily discrimination. I just wanted to be sure that calling people homosexual or heterosexual isn't bigotry. I have to then make the assumption that calling a homosexual civil union by some title that differentiates it from a heterosexual civil union would not be bigotry. I am not speaking in the legal sense here.
2. In another discussion, I am speaking with Tom about whether or not that terminology should then carry over into legal documents. I can understand his stance that since there would not be any legal difference, we need not bother creating a seperate term for it.
My problem is this: I do not consider a homosexual union to be marriage. I believe that in the majority of cases in history, marriage has been a union between one man and one woman. I believe that that is significant to today. To say that homosexuals would receive the exact same benefits in their unions as heterosexuals receive in their marriages does not make those unions marriages. To redefine the word marriage to mean civil unions between two men, two women, or one man and one woman is to just step around the issue.
I suppose one might say that there wouldn't *be* an issue if religious people weren't making one out of it, but that doesn't matter. If homosexuals receive the exact same benefits as heterosexuals, then it is not discriminatory to call those unions something other than marriage. It is not a right provided in the Constitution that anyone who wants to enter into a union called marriage may do so. So, technically, within the same reasoning, I believe that heterosexuals with marriages could legally have their title of "married" changed to some other word without violating their rights. But left to the majority of our citizens, I don't believe that it would happen, and I think that the will of the majority should be considered when one is not speaking of a specific right provided by the Constitution.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Because Marijuana or Alcohol are things.
Men and women, regardless of sexual preference, are people.
Discriminating against alcohol does not affect its status as a citizen. Discriminating against a person does.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because, Xap, while one bans the same behavior for everyone, with the effects being mainly based on preference, the other is aimed specifically at an identifiable group of people, with at least some non-preferential criteria for group membership. It is also the denial of a significant, life-altering benefit based on that group membership. A host of our civil rights are deeply affected by the ability to marry.
Dagonee
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Good post to start this thread, Chad.
I don't agree with all of your beliefs, or with all of your points in that post, but I think you did put your ideas forward in a largely polite manner.
I also think you make some good points on the value of compromise.
This thread has morphed into a discussion of whether or not gay marriage should be legaly recognized, and that's okay. I mean, heck, you have the words right there in the title. And, as far as gay-marriage threads go, this one is a pretty good one.
But that's not, to me, what your initial post is about. I am seeing that Hatrack's conservatives have shown open-mindedness and willingness to compromise. And your point, that those of us who believe that there should be no distinction between same-gender marriages and different-gender marriages might get further if we would compromise some ourselves, and if we were not so quick to labe those who disagree with us with onerous terms like "bigot," is worth thinking about.
Thanks for the thread.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Because Marijuana or Alcohol are things.
Men and women, regardless of sexual preference, are people.
Discriminating against alcohol does not affect its status as a citizen. Discriminating against a person does.
Yes, but gay marriage is not a person - it is a thing. And it is only gay marriage that we are discriminating against if we pass such a ban.
Gay people are free to do everything straight people have, just as Marijuana fans are free to do everything Alcohol fans do.
quote:Because, Xap, while one bans the same behavior for everyone, with the effects being mainly based on preference, the other is aimed specifically at an identifiable group of people, with at least some non-preferential criteria for group membership.
The criteria for defining the group that wants the thing in question should not matter, I believe. For instance, banning the pill would hurt only women, but it is not discriminatory for the law to do so.
quote:It is also the denial of a significant, life-altering benefit based on that group membership. A host of our civil rights are deeply affected by the ability to marry.
Have the courts ruled that such a relationship is a fundamental right? If so, then that would work, but it would still seem that a civil union law would allow them to recieve this benefit while still not recognizing gay marriage as marriage.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, banning the pill does NOT only hurt women - it also hurts men whose partners lack access to convenient, cost-effective birth control.
You clearly don't believe that the criteria for defining the group doesn't matter. For example, I doubt you would find it acceptable to ban black people from smoking marijuana but allow it for white people.
Imagine a law that said "AAA is defined as the civil union of two consenting adults of the same sex. AAA shall inherit all precedents relating to marriage. In the future, no law may be passed that treats AAA different from marriage." How long would it take before either a new word encompassing AAA and marriage was invented, or courts just adopted the shorthand of using the word "marriage" to refer to both.
If the underlying legalities are the same, then they are the same thing. After all, we're talking legal definitions here.
Dagonee
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: If the underlying legalities are the same, then they are the same thing. After all, we're talking legal definitions here.
I know you weren't talking to me but I'll jump from here:
While legally there wouldn't be anything wrong with using the word marriage to make a legal definition meaning all civil unions, wouldn't it be extremely confusing to say that "legally" marriage can include homosexual unions, but technically it doesn't?
I guess my point is that you could use the word "death" to mean civil unions too but that would be pretty confusing.
[ November 04, 2004, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:For example, I doubt you would find it acceptable to ban black people from smoking marijuana but allow it for white people.
That's not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about banning smoking for everyone, even if (for instance) black people were the only ones who liked smoking. That would not be discriminatory, assuming we were doing it because we though smoking was bad, not because we though black people were bad.
And its certainly reasonable to say that people think gay marriage is a bad thing while not thinking gay people are bad.
quote:If the underlying legalities are the same, then they are the same thing. After all, we're talking legal definitions here.
Again, once a ban is passed, the law is changed, and hence the underlying legalities are different.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Xap: Except that gays are the only people who *can* have gay unions. If you created a word that meant "black people smoking" and then banned it, that would be discriminatory.
(I can't tell you how many times I've typed "gay onions" in the last couple of hours.)
[ November 04, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I normally avoid these threads and now I know why.... my head is spinning, but anyway...
quote:Gay people are free to do everything straight people have, just as Marijuana fans are free to do everything Alcohol fans do.
Isn't that the whole point of the debate, though? Gay couples are NOT free to do everything straight couples are, as evidenced by this week's elections. They are being prohibited from having the same (or an equivalent under another term) legal relationship and legal rights as their straight counterparts. For example, and I know I saw this in one of the threads, surviving spousal rights to inherit property, right to medical coverage under a spouse's policy, right to be in intensive care (which is typically limited to immediate family only) with a wounded partner, right to medical information in general about the partner.
I care less about what we call it than ensuring that gay couples have the right to those kinds of "marital" priviledges that straight couples enjoy.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Straight people can have gay marriages if they want (if it is legal), and gay people can have straight marriages.
What you should say is that they normally don't want to - which is different from saying they can't.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While legally there wouldn't be anything wrong with using the word marriage to make a legal definition meaning all civil unions, wouldn't it be extremely confusing to say that "legally" marriage can include homosexual unions, but technically it doesn't?
I guess my point is that you could use the word "death" to mean civil unions too but that would be pretty confusing.
That's how legal language works. As far as I'm concerned personally, marriage has a very particular meaning. It's likely that a large number of man/woman marriages in this country don't come close to meeting that meaning. That's OK. Mine doesn't meet the definition of marriage personally held by many others. But when we're talking solely the legal effect (which we are here), then the legal definition is what matters.
quote:That's not at all what we are talking about. We are talking about banning smoking for everyone, even if (for instance) black people were the only ones who liked smoking. That would not be discriminatory, assuming we were doing it because we though smoking was bad, not because we though black people were bad.
Only because you've placed the discriminatory element in your definition. What matters with smoking is the burning and the health effects on the smoker and the bystander. Being black doesn't effect that. If you defined smoking as "the intentional inhaling of smoke or other gaseous and aresol emmissions from burning matter by black people," you couldn't get away with saying the law isn't discriminatory.
What matters in marriage is the designation of a single person who is the other half of a host of reciprocal legal relationships.
quote:Again, once a ban is passed, the law is changed, and hence the underlying legalities are different.
Actually, most of the bans didn't change the law. It's possible none of them did, if they're interpreted solely to prevent judges from finding an implicit right to gay marriage or civil unions in state constitutions.
And if a ban is passed, then the underlying legalisties aren't the same. My statement was positing the lack of difference if the underlying legalities are the same.
Dagonee
[ November 04, 2004, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:If you defined smoking as "the intentional inhaling of smoke or other gaseous and aresol emmissions from burning matter by black people," you couldn't get away with saying the law isn't discriminatory.
Except I haven't defined "gay marriage" as "a marriage of gay people." Gay people can get married in every state, as long as its to a member of the opposite sex.
[ November 04, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But you have defined marriage as "union with a person of the opposite sex." And the last portion of that phrase is unrelated to the underlying legalities of marriage and denies legal benefits to an identifiable, targeted group.
Dagonee
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: While legally there wouldn't be anything wrong with using the word marriage to make a legal definition meaning all civil unions, wouldn't it be extremely confusing to say that "legally" marriage can include homosexual unions, but technically it doesn't?
No, see, by every definition that matters, technically it would. You would presumably have another definition, but that's your personal definition, not the technical definition.
Of course, this is why I personally think the federal government should stop calling any kind of union a "marriage," since it's clear that some people are only willing to define marriage on their own terms. And if they don't want to call the union between me and my wife a "marriage," they don't have to -- as long as the government still recognizes that union.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd rather see everything changed to "civil union" as well. There's nothing left of marriage in the law that evokes anything I consider essential to being a marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Dag, "People of the opposite sex" is not an identifiable group. Neither is "people of the same sex." Those would be the only things being discriminated against.
"Gay people" are just as free to get married to someone of the opposite sex as "Straight people" are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Fine. I happen to think current marriage law isn't unconstitutional, anyway. But it's still discriminatory. It's placing limits on the practical availability of a benefit to members of a specific group, when group membership is not relevant to the benefits being supplied.
Dagonee
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
I've come to the conclusion that the whole defense of traditional marriage has nothing to do with marriage. I think that, sadly, a majority of people in this country are afraid of homosexuals. They are afraid of their children being homosexuals. They are afraid of attaching any sense of normality to homosexuality, because in their eyes, it will lead to an increase in the number of homosexuals that they have to be afraid of. Historically, these same fears have been used to justify discrimination against blacks, jews, native Americans, and countless other groups of people. Frankly, I am disgusted with the blindness and intolerance we are still capable of selling as "traditional values". It makes me sick. Bite me, America. You screwed up. Big.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I think for some people it really is about marriage. I also think for a lot of people there's the Ick Factor playing in, whether they notice it or not.
I am deeply disappointed in American voters. Eleven states. *sigh*
Jen
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wussy Actor, here's an extract from a post in this thread about this:
quote:Don't know how this extrapolates to the population as a whole, but I know LOTS of people who are dead-set against legal gay marriage but also dead-set against criminalizing homosexual acts. Many of these people support domestic partner benefits at jobs. Few think two people of the same sex living together as spouses in all but name should be interfered with.
Now we get to my speculation on this: I think the major sticking point is not that most people think homosexuals should be stopped from engaging in homosexual acts, or even living as sexually active couples in the same residence.
I think these people see legal recognition of marriage as an imprimatur or validation of marriage as somehow special, as a bedrock of society. Their underlying thought, articulated or not, is that if homosexuals gain access to the institution of marriage on the theory that marriage is "just a contract," then it means their marriage, current or prospective, will be "just a contract." This is the sense in which homosexual marriage "threatens" marriage, and is why hypothetcial questions about how "2 gay guys getting married will make you get divorced" are not useful arguments to make. The perceived "threat" is not to any individual marriage, but to the prestige of marriage as an institution. The underlying fear is that one more reason to make marriage be "just a piece of paper" will cause people to forego it.*
I think there's some indirect evidence for my theory on this that's pretty strong in other areas as well. For example, far more people support civil unions than legal gay marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
quote: State Question 711 This measure adds a new section of law to the Constitution. It adds Section 35 to Article 2. It defines marriage to be between one man and one woman. It prohibits giving the benefits of marriage to people who are not married. It provides that same sex marriages in other states are not valid in this state. It makes issuing a marriage license in violation of this section a misdemeanor.
This referendum passed in Oklahoma with 76% approval. I have a hard time believing that 1,075,079 people in Oklahoma, which has the second highest divorce rate in the country, were truly more worried about the institution of marriage.
[ November 04, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, it would seem to me that the quoted argument only works if you see your marriage only valid and consisting of what the law tells you it is.
I think that with some thinking on this, people, particularly the religious, would see that their religion often has additional obligations/privileges through the religious realm of marriage, than the law proscribes. That their legal recognition of marriage is a subset of what their marriage really is.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bok, I think the problems result precisely because people are not mentally dividing marriage between civil aspects and religious/personal/spiritual aspects.
Therefore, in their minds, a change to one is a change to the other. We're talking perceptions of metaphysical entities.
quote:This referendum passed in Oklahoma with 76% approval. I have a hard time believing that 1,075,079 people in Oklahoma, which has the second highest divorce rate in the country, were truly more worried about the institution of marriage.
You can doubt it all you want. Until you ackowledge it you'll be unable to change their minds on the subject.
Dagonee
[ November 04, 2004, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
These same people also elected a Senator who vowed to make it illegal for homosexuals to teach school. What has that got to do with changing the meaning of their own marriage? I know there are some people who fall into the group you described, but it seems clear that, in Oklahoma at least, they are not in the majority among opponents of gay marriage. I do agree that it falls on me and other like minded people to change their minds. I am committed to doing so. My disgust is at the number of minds that need changing.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I've got a question that I don't know the answer to and I'm not saying it's even relevant to the discussion. In other words, I'm not asking this because I want to use anyone's responses to make a point - I'm genuinely curious.
If marriage could be redefined to include anyone marrying anyone - then who is going to pay for all the new dependents? I mean, are the insurance companies going to have to absorb all these new dependents? Doesn't that mean the additional costs will be passed on?
What would stop two heterosexual male roommates, both of whom have no sexual interest in each other, getting "married" just for the purpose of having cheaper health insurance?
Would that sort of union - motivated by money, be something that underminded traditional marriage? With no-fault divorce so easy to obtain, why wouldn't people just marry and then divorce whenever it is economically advantageous?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:What would stop two heterosexual male roommates, both of whom have no sexual interest in each other, getting "married" just for the purpose of having cheaper health insurance?
Would that sort of union - motivated by money, be something that underminded traditional marriage? With no-fault divorce so easy to obtain, why wouldn't people just marry and then divorce whenever it is economically advantageous?
Yes, this sort of union - motivated by money, is something that undermines traditional marriage, because a marriage is about binding and supporting fidelity.
But do you see how men and women can "work" the system now, and why that's not a reason to disallow men to marry women?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Insurance companies don't cover dependents out of the goodness of their hearts. Someone pays for the coverage - usually employers.
Many companies already cover domestic partners. The rest will have to absorb the cost somehow - by reducing their subsidy of dependent care (some don't subsidize this at all, BTW) or simply covering the employees' spouses. But companies do this to retain good employees, so it's not like their being coerced.
Some people already get married or not based on such economic advantages. Being gay doesn't really come into play.
Dagonee
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
quote: What would stop two heterosexual male roommates, both of whom have no sexual interest in each other, getting "married" just for the purpose of having cheaper health insurance?
Would that sort of union - motivated by money, be something that underminded traditional marriage? With no-fault divorce so easy to obtain, why wouldn't people just marry and then divorce whenever it is economically advantageous?
The thing is, people already do this. Do we really want to justify these laws with the idea that only straight people should be able to take advantage of the system?
Posted by Wussy Actor (Member # 5937) on :
Dagonee and Irami
You beat me to it, and said it better. Damn your eyes.
[ November 04, 2004, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Wussy Actor ]
Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
They good.
Reaaallll good.
[ November 04, 2004, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)