Thank you for your service in representing the people of Maryland. I love this state where I was born almost 36 years ago and it is endowed with a rich measure of natural beauty and cultural heritage.
I have never written to Congress before; I normally participate in government from the polling booth. But I may not have the opportunity to participate in a question of vital importance to me without your permission. On June 6, 2006 you will have the priviledge to represent this state regarding a proposed amendment defining marriage in the U.S. constitution.
All I ask from you is to give the people the voice in this matter. Allow this amendment to be submitted for ratification. You are part of a select group of people who have been given much power over the lives of millions. Please remember us when you stand up to be counted.
Sincerely,
[my name]
[ May 30, 2006, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Are you asking that he vote for the amendment? If so, consider that we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We're supposed to be able to protect the rights of every citizen, including those in the minority. It's perfectly reasonable for a legislator to vote against a constitutional amendment, rather than accepting it just so it can be put to a popular vote, if he or she feels that this amendment could be used by the majority to repress the minority.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm asking him and her to vote for.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm asking him and her to vote for.
I don't understand what you meant by that. If it's just a reference to the fact that I used the word "he" in my first sentence to describe a senator that happens to be female, have a look at definition #2. I did use the politically correct pronoun in my last sentence, but I'm not going to correct it in its first instance because it's unnecessary.
If you meant something else by your last post, let me know.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Are you asking due to the significance of the date? Or are do you support the legality of civil marriage to same-sex couples? I can't remember what your previous opinion on it was.
Initially, of couse, I thought this was going to be about the remake of "The Omen".
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm extremely wary about the amendment.
I don't like touching the Constitution. We've got enough problems with interpreting what's there...
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I was mainly looking at how to write a letter about this to two democrat senators. I know a lot of people feel like their opinion won't matter.
I guess the only other thing I want to add is that the sin of Sodom was pride, and not the really fantastic parties. The fantastic parties were just a symptom.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Gays who marry are responsible for the dirty old men discriminating against women?
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Could you guys clarify what you're talking about for us poor foreigners with no clue? Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
On that note lets vote to see if Jews and Christians can have a civil ceremony. While we are at it lets put it to the educated masses whether or not Blacks and Whites should get married.
Matters of civil rights should NOT be voted on by the general public. Whether you are for or against gay marriage, the matter should be up to the court system to decide.
The ONLY reason the republicans are fighting so hard to put this on the ballot is because they know beyond any doubt that it will lose to the general public. Every ultra conservative will climb out from between the rocks and vote that day, while the moderates (who are the vast majority) won't care enough to show up at the polls.
As a Maryland resident I thank you for reminding me that day is approaching. I will have to draft my own letter to my representative.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
How would my partner and me being able to marry contribute to the "ongoing inequality of women"? You're not making any sense.
The idea of enshrining discrimination against a segment of the population in a Constitutional amendment is horribly frightening. It opens a door that you'll come to regret opening.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I <3 irony.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
It's about banning gay marriage, right?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna: It's about banning gay marriage, right?
Maryland Republicans want to put gay marriage on the ballot this fall to allow voters to decide.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I wonder, if this gets voted down, if Southern Baptists are going to spaz about the date...
Let gays have civil unions. They're not edging in on YOUR RELIGIOUSLY-SANCTIONED MARRIAGE. It doesn't make your marriage any lower or less meaningful in the eyes of God. If churches want to let gays marry, they should be able to, and if they don't, then gays should have the option of civil union. I mean, for crying out loud, if the Catholic church doesn't think that Catholics should remarry, should the government pass an amendment voiding remarriage?
-pH
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Thank you Stephan, it's a lot clearer that way. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Good luck, Pooka.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Well, the letter seems rather unclear... it's difficult to even determine what it is you want without reading it several times, and it's not until halfway through that you start to explain why you're writing. However, if what you're asking for is a chance to vote for legal discrimination against gays, well... please keep it as is.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I think the letter sounds good. I'm sure they will be getting a lot of nutty letters...so they will apreciate one that doesn't sound over the top. I wrote my senators once...and got letters back from both of them...though one of them was rather pissy. They can get touchy when you ask them to vote in a way that they don't want to vote (unless of course you are a lobbyist that is willing to bribe them).
Personally, even though I am a conservative Christian...I would vote agaist the amendment. I just don't think that it is a constitutional issue. I would support an anti abortion ammendment, because that (in my view) would protect the unborn babies, but I really don't see why gay marriage would harm anyone. That being said, I wouldn't want my church to support gay marriage anymore than I would want my church to come out in favor of premarital sex, but I just don't think it is something the government should be involved with.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm baffled as to why Congress would need to give "the people" a voice in this matter. Isn't there already a provision that enables "the people" to bypass the legislature for an amendment, provided they muster overwhelming support? Most states -- and the federal government -- admit this possibility.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm baffled as to why Congress would need to give "the people" a voice in this matter. Isn't there already a provision that enables "the people" to bypass the legislature for an amendment, provided they muster overwhelming support? Most states -- and the federal government -- admit this possibility.
That would involve some sort massive organized movement, something we are just not capable of any more.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm baffled as to why Congress would need to give "the people" a voice in this matter. Isn't there already a provision that enables "the people" to bypass the legislature for an amendment, provided they muster overwhelming support? Most states -- and the federal government -- admit this possibility.
There is no way to amend the federal constitution without going through legislatures. Congress can be bypassed, but not the state legislatures.
Edit: the second sentence was worded incorrectly. Either Congress can bypass the state legislatures (by sending the proposed amendment to special conventions in each state) of the state legislatures can bypass the Congress (by calling for a special national convention, which will then send the bill to either the state legislatures or a special convention).
quote:How would my partner and me being able to marry contribute to the "ongoing inequality of women"? You're not making any sense.
quote:Gays who marry are responsible for the dirty old men discriminating against women?
Both of you (understandably) misread what "amendment" referred to in pooka's second to last post. She was talking about the correction from "he" to "him and her" - that is, her amendment to the wording in Baron Samedi's question.
Note the timing on pooka's and Bokonon's post and the clear reference to the style manual.
Posted by Pod (Member # 941) on :
What state do you live in?
There are proposed constitutional amendments in my state on a regular basis. Thousands of petitions are signed, and then the state has to vote on them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
pooka is almost certainly referring to a federal amendment, everyone. Specifically this one.
She has two Senators she's writing, one a man and one a woman, which matches up with Md.'s senators: Barbara A. Mikulski, D (to Jan. 2005) and Paul S. Sarbanes.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
She has two Senators she's writing, one a man and one a woman, which matches up with Md.'s senators: Barbara A. Mikulski, D (to Jan. 2005) and Paul S. Sarbanes.
Its a shame I hate those two with so much passion. But sadly on this issue I'm glad they have the Senate seats rather then their conservative counterparts.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The problem with convening a special national convention is that the delegates can then pass any and all of the Amendment(s) that they choose, up to and including dissolution of the three branches of the Federal government.
[ May 30, 2006, 03:38 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The other day, I got a hysterical push poll from a Republican candidate for the House here in Wisconsin. One of the questions was:
"Would it significantly affect your voting decisions if you knew that Tammy Baldwin (our current Rep.) had twice voted against America last year?"
I found that hysterical. And said yeah, sure, it probably would, but I'd really like to know what bill that was supposed to be. Was it a straight up and down vote? "America: Yes or No?" And if the nays had won, would they all have gone home?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe it was the band.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Maybe it was the band.
Probably. I understand that Tammy Baldwin also dislikes Kansas. She thinks that Bringing it Back isn't a bad song, but other than that she hates 'em.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Maybe it was the band.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
But everybody knows The Band is better than America.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The other day, I got a hysterical push poll from a Republican candidate for the House here in Wisconsin. One of the questions was:
"Would it significantly affect your voting decisions if you knew that Tammy Baldwin (our current Rep.) had twice voted against America last year?"
When I was 16, it was the occasional questions like that in polls that I conducted that strongly influenced me to quit that job.
And people wonder why I never accept a poll to prove a point in a debate...
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I hate the idea of this amendment.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
I think it is kind of ironic that this is even up for debate in Maryland considering that's where the Toleration Act of 1849 was conceived.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Um... oh nevermind.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem with convening a special national convention is that the delegates can then pass any and all of the Amendment(s) that they choose, up to and including dissolution of the three branches of the Federal government.
It still requires ratification by 3/4 of the states legislatures.
Posted by esl (Member # 3143) on :
I emailed my senators about the Federal Marraige Amendment. One replied, saying she will be voting against it because she believes marraige is part of family law, which the states (not the nation) are supposed to govern. I didn't know about that last part.. Anyway, she's a democrat so make of it what you will. It sounds like a good position for not angering too many people on either side of the issue.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Esl--your senator sounds very pragmatic.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The problem with convening a special national convention is that the delegates can then pass any and all of the Amendment(s) that they choose, up to and including dissolution of the three branches of the Federal government.
It still requires ratification by 3/4 of the states legislatures.
I thought it just needed ratification by 3/4 of the states. Some states ratify by an open plebecite, no?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes - again I screwed it up. See my correction in my first post on the subject.
To correct the correction, it's only state legislatures or conventions within each state:
quote:in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Who are the constituents who asked for this bill to be crafted in the first place? Anyone know the history on this particular bill?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, Here's a Thomas link to the Senate Resolution:
It was a major issue in the 2004 campaign.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
Years ago, you mentioned your belief that homosexual marriage is a threat to women's equality. Several people disagreed -- and I thought you changed your views then. Out of curiousity, did you recently return to this opinion, or did it never waver?
And in either case, I'd be interested in hearing an explanation of how equal rights threaten women. If anything, it liberates them -- homosexuality isn't a solely male trait. What possible danger do you believe homosexual equality could pose to women? Or to anyone, for that matter?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm interested in your answer to Lalo's questions, too. It seems to me that if gay marriage had any effect on equal rights for women it would be positive, not negative.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
As a bisexual woman, I find it depressing that someone would think that equal rights for me would mean fewer rights for them.
I guess I just don't understand how some people think.
But then, I'm not really human, ya know? I'm just a queer.
Pix
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But then, I'm not really human, ya know? I'm just a queer.
Straw man, and an insulting one.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
You're right, mph, she's at least 3/5ths human.
Maybe instead of getting married we could let her play with dolls or something.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Can someone point to the place where pooka said homosexual marriage threatened women's equality?
And before simply quoting the he or she amendment post, please explain why you think "amendment" referred to the amendment being proposed in Congress, not the change of "he" to "him or her."
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Did someone just delete a post or is Hatrack funny again?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dag: sL's post preserves a quotation that pooka has apparently deleted the original of (I recall reading it, however).
edit: wait, now I see her post again . . . I'm pretty certain it wasn't there when I just checked. Odd.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, I see what you mean, I had only skimmed Baron Samedi's post and didn't notice the entire byplay. Yes, pooka's apparently just referring to the language she prefers for pronouns in Samedi's post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Look at the post two above hers.
Here:
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: Are you asking that he vote for the amendment? If so, consider that we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. We're supposed to be able to protect the rights of every citizen, including those in the minority. It's perfectly reasonable for a legislator to vote against a constitutional amendment, rather than accepting it just so it can be put to a popular vote, if he or she feels that this amendment could be used by the majority to repress the minority.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I'm asking him and her to vote for.
<post by Bokonon skipped>
quote:Originally posted by pooka: The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
Note the style manual reference - isn't that referring to the change to "him and her"?
Edit: I'd sure like direct clarification from the source, though.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Dag, your law degree is showing. It's clear from the context of the first few posts that she was referring to the constitutional amendment, not to the "amending" of her words.
And to "point to a place", you can search for threads from December 2003 and March 2004 where she also discusses feeling "a little threatened" by gay marriage sidelining women, as she believes that the number of gay men far outweighs gay women.
People aren't just pulling this from nowhere.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm the only one who's discussed the context of the relevant posts. By all means, explain why my reasoning is flawed, but don't expect me to change my mind merely because you say it's clear.
As to the other threads, If they exists, I expect someone could point to them.
quote:Dag, your law degree is showing.
What, you think my actually applying reason to the facts at hand is somehow a byproduct of my law degree? There are plenty of people who do that here who don't have one.
Which degree of yours is it that shows when you make straw-man or ad hominem attacks?
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Why, a Film degree, of course.
My ad hominem attack about your lawyerly nature referred to your dogged insistence that a native English speaker (I presume) used the term "amendment" in a discussion about a "constitutional amendment" to refer not to the issue at hand, but to the "amending" of a pronoun to a sentence.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its not clear, Zeugma. It could just be a reference to the pronoun suggestion, using the sorts of language that she's been speaking with recently. I know I tend to use odd word choices if I've been reading an unusual style of writing, for instance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My ad hominem attack about your lawyerly nature referred to your dogged insistence that a native English speaker (I presume) used the term "amendment" in a discussion about a "constitutional amendment" to refer not to the issue at hand, but to the "amending" of a pronoun to a sentence.
Whenever using a word not normally used, it's fairly common to use it (especially in informal communication) instead of a more appropriate word. You're overlooking the fact that she's more likely to use the word when she's been using it recently and overestimating the likelihood that the word was consciously chosen.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
bboyminn:
If a State wants to pass a law banning gay marriage I think that is probably OK. Keeping in mind that I am FOR gay marriage/civil union. That is the choice of the individual state.
However, there is a very specific reason why most states don't just do that, and that is because doing so would likely be overturned by the State and/or Federal Supreme Court as being blatantly discriminitory. So, the Religious Right is trying to do an end run around the law by having their personal wishes enshrined in the State and/or Federal Constitution where it become extremely difficult to challenge.
Next, you don't go mucking around with any Constitution to enshrine current popular opinion into it. The Constitution is a document of universal and indisputable truths, and not the place for short term (relative to history) personal agendas.
Further, the Constitution is about insuring rights not about limiting them. To define marriage in the Constitution is ridiculous, it is especially ridiculous when it is a thinly disguised effort to prevent or eliminate the rights of a specific segment of society.
Again, the Constitution is about universal and indisputable truths. The very fact that there are so many diverse opinions on the matter, the fact that some states allow civil union while others do not, and in fact some world countries allow them, means that this subject is FAR FROM Universal Truth.
This is a clear effort of a few to force their opinion on the majority, and to do so in a way that circumvents the normal legal process. Now you may say that it is not the will of the few, but the will of the majority, but that make little difference. Believe it or not, our country is not really ruled by the will of the majority, because if it were, any hairbrained idea that can be framed to capture the popular opinion could be made into law.
Yes, we let people vote, and to some extent, we accept the will of the majority but only to the extent that the will of the majority does not conflict with or impinge on the universal and irrevocable truths upon which our nation (or state) is founded.
You can not allow the current popular will of the people to suspend the Bill of Rights in the name of security. You can not allow the will of the people to suspend the Constitution and envoke a facist government. The will of the people and the will of the government have very specific and intentional boundaries and controls on them to make sure that the will of the people/government never corrupts the foundation of our generally free society.
Next, this is not a religious issue; it is a civil and legal issue. It is about whether or not two couples in nearly identical circumstances should be afforded nearly identical rights. There is no logical or reasonable reason why they should not. There is not reason why one couple should have inheritance rights while the other is denied those rights. There is no reason why one couple should be able to make medical decisions for each other while another couple should not. There is no reason why one couple should have automatic guardianship of their children, while another nearly identical couple should be denied that right. There is no reason why one couple should have full insurance benefits while another nearly identical couple should be denied those benefits.
This must be decided as a matter of law. It must be viewed from a cold dispassionate postion that is devoid of person views and prejudices. It should be resolved as purely a matter of civil and general law, and from a pure civil rights perspective.
Again, any attempt to alter the Constitution as a matter of popular opinion or the thinly veiled wishes of a vocal majority with a specif agenda, is the road to ruin for any Democratic Republic.
Further 'popular vote' is never a majority, it is merely a majority of the people who were willing to take the time to go to the ballot box, and assuming they understood what they were voting for or against, to initiate that action. Now, if you can actually get 51% of the total eligible voting population to agree that vote might carry some weigh. But again, we must be ruled by underlying universal truths and rights, and not by the whims of a majority of the people. We can not allow popular opinion to pollute, corrupt, and corrode the foundation upon which we have built a free and just society.
One final point, which I have already made, the push for a Constitutional Ammendment is being made by people who know they can not win in the realm of Law, because any law past that restricts the right of a specific generally law abiding segement of the population is bound to be declared un-constitutional, therefore the Religious Right can only attack the Constitution itself.
It is very easy for great orators to rally a sufficient number of people to their cause to get a majority vote on a ballot, but they will never get a majority of the population to agree that resticting rights should be incorporated into the Constitution.
Just a few thoughts.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I am in not in favor of Constitutional Amendments being used to define things like "marriage". However, a more broad amendment could reasonably be necessary to reign in the courts if they start interpretting equality as a blank check for altering social institutions.
For instance, I think it would be much more equal if men could be mothers if they want to, at least in the eyes of the law. However, I don't think equality demands that we redefine "mother" in order to make this so.
[ May 31, 2006, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Tresopax,
To some extent I agree with you. In a way, I like to explain the 'blank check' concept as the difference between Rational and Rationalize; two very very different things. When you rationalize you can taylor your logic to arrive at any conclusion; logical or illogical. However, Rational thought is tempered with true reason and fairness.
So, it is important that the 'powers that be' do not fall into the trap of irrationally rationalzing anything and everything. There are still reasonable limits and boudaries.
I do take small acception to a 'broad ammendment' that prevents the alterning of 'social institutions'. Remember that at one time Slavery was a accepted Social Institution, but we would never now, in our modern day and age, consider it acceptable. 'Social Institution' DO NEED TO CHANGE when we come to see that they are corrupt and morally unfair as well as blatantly discriminitory.
There may be some Social Institutions that you do not want to be changed, but there very well may be and surely are Social Institutions that very much DO NEED TO BE CHANGED. The great problem facing society is determining which are which, and making that determination in a fair, just, and dispationate way.
Just passing it on.
Steve/BlueWizards
Posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk (Member # 9067) on :
The government must never be in the business of legalizing morality. Morality is a personal conviction, no a social one. A crime is only a crime if there is a VICTIM... Otherwise, we're all #$!(&'d.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Can someone point to the place where pooka said homosexual marriage threatened women's equality?
And before simply quoting the he or she amendment post, please explain why you think "amendment" referred to the amendment being proposed in Congress, not the change of "he" to "him or her."
I quoted pooka, above. It's in line with a view she's espoused for some time now, that allowing homosexuals to marry as heterosexuals do will threaten women -- as I recall, her logic was that if men could marry men, they wouldn't marry women anymore.
It's been some time since I've heard her say it, so I might well have misunderstood her -- but in the context, I'm fairly sure she's repeating her old opinion. It didn't stand up to examination the last time around, and I'd be interested in hearing if she's found new justification for her belief -- assuming she still holds it at all, of course.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Robin Kaczmarczyk: The government must never be in the business of legalizing morality. Morality is a personal conviction, no a social one. A crime is only a crime if there is a VICTIM... Otherwise, we're all #$!(&'d.
Whew, looks like we narrowly missed that one. Let's all act quickly to keep morality illegal.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
When I read Pooka's post, I interpreted it as a way to link her frustration toward my (technically proper) choice of pronouns with the reason she started the thread. It appeared to me that she was saying that the reason it bugged her that I used the indefinite pronoun instead of a combination of the masculine and feminine ones was because it somehow degraded females, and her extraordinary sensitivity to the plight of the modern American woman is why she took action on both the Defense of Marriage Amendment and on my use of that pronoun.
Of course, I could be wrong, but based on her word choice coupled with an apparent history of feeling that gay marriage degrades women, it seems to make sense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Morality is a personal conviction, no a social one.
I don't think that any society without moral convictions can survive.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Aw, we'll all end up with Gay Marriage in the end and it's not going to hurt anyone any more than cabbage or broccoli does.
EDIT: Er, that's not to compare anyone's relationship to a vegetable. You know what I mean.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Can someone point to the place where pooka said homosexual marriage threatened women's equality?
Sure. It's here. It's kind of sad seeing someone use "being against prejudice" as an excuse for supporting prejudice.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you, sL
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Oh, see, I was thinking about the post in this thread.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok heterosexual guys, how many of you are gonna jump at the chance to marry another guy first chance you get!
(serious now) Pooka, straight guys aren't gonna go gay. No matter how much hairy man sex they can get, that's not what straight guys are into. You might think the idea is two guys is so hot that, hey, why wouldn't they? but straight guys don't think it's hot. And having it be socially acceptable will not MAKE them think it's hot. Their brain isn't wired that way.
Pix
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Morality is a personal conviction, no a social one.
I don't think that any society without moral convictions can survive.
The people who persecuted Mormons were defending their moral convictions as well. Somehow I don't see you as being quite so eager to defend that stance.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The people who persecuted Mormons were defending their moral convictions as well.
I don't think so.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The people who persecuted Mormons were defending their moral convictions as well.
I don't think so.
Why not?
EDIT: Mormons were primarily (to my knowledge) persecuted for following a false prophet and for polygamy. How is that not persecution based on moral convictions?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I still don't understand the arguments against gay marriage. I guess immorality is one that is used, but I really don't understand how two people who love each other and want to dedicate their lives to each other is at all immoral.
Unless you use the argument that children should result from a union, but that is purely a religious point of view. The Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, so religious ideals should not be a foundation of Constitutional law. Are we saying that people who are sterile because of health reasons should not get married too?
Next argument: it is unnatural. So what? Are we saying that everything unnatural should be banned? How is it "natural" that we are able to go into space? I mean, if we were meant to go into space, we would've been born with wings.
Frankly, I think this law is very unfair. Homosexuals are a very real part of our society, and from what I've seen they are like everyone else. They try to get through life the best way they can, just like heterosexuals. They contribute to society, sometimes more so than heterosexuals. It is my view that society should accept homosexuals as they are, and I can't believe that this country is going to lengths of actually preventing two consenting adults that want to spend their lives together from doing so. And honestly, I kinda hate those people who are that close-minded to how other people want to live their lives. This country has passed laws preventing two people of different races from marrying, which (I hope) people now realize is ridiculous. I think that one day, people will realize that the consideration of this type of law is equally as ridiculous. But the fact that this law is being considered means that we have learned nothing from history about being open to other lifestyles and just not accepting people for who they are. Diversity is a good thing because it lends different ideals and points of view, so why stifle it. Meanwhile, we are preventing two people who want to live together from formal recognition by the state that they are together.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I would vote for a constitutional amendment defining marriage if, and only if, it allowed same sex couples to marry and have the same rights as heterosexual couples.
I would like to see that happen so that we don't end up with a patchwork of state laws making it legal to discriminate against some couples (or deny them the same legal status as heterosexual couples) in one state, but illegal to do so in another state.
Anyway, I don't see that happening any time soon.
This particular amendment is not something I'd like to see passed.
If it does leave Congress, I will actively campaign against it.
If it passes in my state, I'll be seriously disappointed.
If it passes in the country, I'll be disgusted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I can't believe that this country is going to lengths of actually preventing two consenting adults that want to spend their lives together from doing so.
I don't see anybody trying to do that.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I do. I see a country founded on the ideals of diversity having people who consider two people of the same gender wrong, even subjecting those people to verbal ridicule and physical attack.
How are homosexuals supposed to feel, knowing that their country, that their fellow citizens, disregard them so? That their love means nothing to the state, which in fact is composed of their own peers? I'd rather have two homosexuals who are committed to each other have the right to marry and entitled to all privileges associated than people who see it as nothing and marry multiple times.
By passing this amendment, there is a message sent that there is something wrong with being homosexual, that the way they live their life is wrong. My point of view is that we should let people lead their lives the way they choose, especially if they are trying to lead peaceful, joy-filled lives. I don't care if people are gay if that makes them happy, especially since they're not harming other people or society. If anything, they are contributing to society by demostrating their appreciation and love for other people.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Porter, the opposition to same-sex marriage is primarily predicated on a fear that it will make homosexual monogamy socially acceptable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I find it interesting that the pro-gay-marriage people are making long posts with well-thought-out points, and the antis, if I can use that words, are making one-liners objecting to particular sentences, and without giving their reasoning or responding to objections at that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, I'm pro-gay-marriage, and I make one-line posts! I'm doing my bit!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
KOM -- you'll notice that the people making long posts are people who are in general more likely to make long posts, and those making short posts are those who tend to make sort posts in other threads.
quote:Porter, the opposition to same-sex marriage is primarily predicated on a fear that it will make homosexual monogamy socially acceptable.
I agree. I may have been mistaken in reading "preventing two consenting adults" more as "making it impossible for two consenting adults" than "persuading people not to".
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I am in not in favor of Constitutional Amendments being used to define things like "marriage". However, a more broad amendment could reasonably be necessary to reign in the courts if they start interpretting equality as a blank check for altering social institutions.
For instance, I think it would be much more equal if men could be mothers if they want to, at least in the eyes of the law. However, I don't think equality demands that we redefine "mother" in order to make this so.
Racial segregation was once a social institution that many people should not be changed.
Just a thought.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
JH,
"Unless you use the argument that children should result from a union, but that is purely a religious point of view. The Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, so religious ideals should not be a foundation of Constitutional law."
BlueWizard:
I realise I am picking a very very very very fine point here, and I also think I understand what you intended to say, but I must point out what I consider, well, not an error, but a poor choice of words.
Religious Ideals can be part of a foundation of constitutional law, but ideals are very very different that Religious Doctrine, Religious Opinions, and Religion itself. We can draw on universal ideals that are religiously based, and in fact the founding father probably did just that. However, we can not let Religious Doctrine, and popular Religious Opinion errode away the very foundation of our Constitutional Republic. There are founding documents, the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights that have served us very well, in fact, served us better than any other form of government, and while religious IDEALS can be part of what guides us, popular religious opinion or extreme interpretations of religious doctrine can not be allowed to compromise that core foundation of our government.
I do understand that I am essentially saying what you said in the broader sense. Actualy, I am really only pick at your use of the term 'ideals'.
For what little it's worth.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
quote:Porter, the opposition to same-sex marriage is primarily predicated on a fear that it will make homosexual monogamy socially acceptable.
I thought someone told me it was wrong to assign motives to the opposition.
Coulda sworn . . .
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I find it interesting that the pro-gay-marriage people are making long posts with well-thought-out points, and the antis, if I can use that words, are making one-liners objecting to particular sentences, and without giving their reasoning or responding to objections at that.
I find it interesting that it's primarily only people on the pro-gay-marriage side who are assembling straw-men and assigning motives to others.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
It may be only me, but even if it was socially acceptable I wouldn't sleep with a woman or spend my life with a woman. I don't think women understood women best, either. So far the person who understands me best is my Hubby who happens to be male. It's not an uncommon idea though - I may be wrong but I remember reading about it in a book from Joe Haldeman, in a far future were everyone is gay or lesbian and a poor guy who belongs to our time but was in the future because of the relativity involved in space travels was straight and considered as very, very weird.
[ June 01, 2006, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Has anyone ever met an Atheist that opposes gay marriage being legalized?
Posted by Dr. Evil (Member # 8095) on :
I think it is a slippery slope when we start granting rights on people's behaviors or comparing the same behaviors to race and beliefs.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Agreed. So we should stop granting rights based on heterosexuality and let people marry whoever they want.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I thought someone told me it was wrong to assign motives to the opposition.
When responding to Porter's "I don't see anybody trying to do that," in reference to this statement -- "I can't believe that this country is going to lengths of actually preventing two consenting adults that want to spend their lives together from doing so." -- it becomes rather relevant to establish that this is exactly what one of the most commonly-advanced arguments against same-sex marriage actually is.
There are of course OTHER motivations, ranging from a narrow desire for semantic purity to a desire to completely eliminate marriage altogether. But the second most commonly cited reason for banning same-sex marriage (i.e. "defending marriage") is that permitting gay people to live together in social acceptance will lead to social immorality.
The MOST common reply is that "redefining" marriage to include gay relationships will somehow cheapen marriage, meaning that heterosexual couples will take marriage less seriously for some reason.
Here's my paraphrase (i.e. humorous distortion) of the five most common reasons given. I fully expect anyone opposed to same-sex marriage to recognize their own argument here and be offended by my oversimplification of it.
1) Heterosexuals won't take marriage seriously if they have to share it with gay people. 2) Letting gay people enjoy monogamous relationships might make us stop hating them. 3) If we let gay people marry, we'll have to let rocks marry donkeys. And while individual rock-donkey couples might make decent parents, we certainly can't put them on equal footing for things like adoption rights when there are thousands of heterosexual couples out there right now waiting for a cute blonde baby to show up on the adoption list, and if the rock-donkey couples take all the cute babies, the heterosexual couples are going to have to start paying Asian agencies even more than they already are to avoid adopting ugly middle-schoolers. 4) My church doesn't marry gay people. My church doesn't marry Catholics, either. So I'm also opposed to Catholic marriage. 5) Marriage is defined as being "a man and a woman." Somewhere. In some dictionary. And I can't afford a new dictionary, so I hate it when words change.
Note that I'm not attempting to explain why we SHOULD hate gay people (or, if you must, the "sin" of gay behavior, not the sinner); that's just a premise on which argument #2 is founded. But there's arguments for that, too, both secular and religious:
1) God says so, and we don't want to piss off God. 2) If we stop hating gay people, we'll all turn gay. And then we'll go extinct. 3) Gender roles are essential to our society, which we define as a society in which gender roles are essential.
--------
MY solution? Get rid of marriage entirely as a legal institution, replaced by civil unions for all. If people want to get married in a church, let 'em -- and let the churches apply whatever standards they want to that completely ceremonial, um, ceremony. But then make them sign a little paper that makes their "marriage" also a "civil union."
But, unfortunately, if you look at the REAL problems (as stated above *grin*), you realize why this isn't much of a "compromise" -- even if it fully solves the problem as usually phrased by SSM opponents.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Evil: I think it is a slippery slope when we start granting rights on people's behaviors or comparing the same behaviors to race and beliefs.
I think it's dangerously naive, (or maybe just plain disingenuous ), to reduce sexuality to simple "behavior".
Also, I'm interested in knowing in what way "belief" in your sentence is less a "behavior" than sexuality is.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:MY solution? Get rid of marriage entirely as a legal institution, replaced by civil unions for all. If people want to get married in a church, let 'em -- and let the churches apply whatever standards they want to that completely ceremonial, um, ceremony. But then make them sign a little paper that makes their "marriage" also a "civil union."
You could also do as we do, have a civil ceremony for everyone and after that a religious for those who want, but which would have no legal value. After all this would also eliminate the five minutes marriage Vegas-style because you'd have to fill a file and wait a few weeks before you get married. Time to think over things is always good. (Just realized that what I wrote may lead people to think gay marriage is authorized here - it's not, but there's a special contract very much wedding-like that same sex people can sign together. Not exactly the same rights and obligtions, especially since you have to have this contract signed since months-years before you have some rights, but it's still better than nothing.)
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I do know one sometime-agnostic who is at least ambivalent about the idea.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
To further expound on my problem with Dr. Evil's post above:
"Sexuality" is much more than mere "behavior". Sure my behavior can be an outward indicator of my sexuality, but is it the whole of it? I don't think so. If I yearn to be with a man sexually but never act on it am I not homosexual nonetheless? I think it's a mistake of reduction on the part of many anti-gay rights people to try to limit the issue to gay sex acts. If they can define us solely because we "do that" they can lump it in with all the other things people do which are immoral and/or illegal.
Contrary to this view, sexuality is a very complex mix of behavior, attraction, biology, psychology, upbringing, and personal identity. I think there's ample evidence that religious belief is also a complex mix of those things. Far from being a slippery slope, one's sexual orientation has (IMO) overwhelmingly more in common with religious belief than it does with mere behavior, and no one here questions whether religious belief is worthy of explicit protection.
For that matter, both of those have most of those same things in common with "Race". Though I'm not at all sure "race" means anything legally other than "color of skin", most common usage of the term certainly means a mix of all the things stated above. If you don't think "behavior" plays a large part in "race", ask yourself how it's possible for a black man to be an "Uncle Tom", or for a white kid to "act black"?
The biggest irony in Dr. Evil's slippery slope fear is that homosexual behavior, at least in terms of sex acts, is already a protected behavior, just like heterosexual behavior. It's all the other stuff that goes into sexual orientation and equal rights that we're still fighting for.
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
Seriously, Tom, I don't have a problem with you painting what you feel the other side to be, or with the idea of governments getting out of the marriage business, and let marriage of any stripe be a religious/individual issue.
I just wanted to be petty and point out your hypocrisy in telling me I shouldn't create a simplified potrayl of "the other side" on abortion, but then have you turn around and do the same thing to "the other side" on SSM.
I'm just trying to get you to concede that painting a picture of the other side, even if you've never been on it, is not in and of itself wrong.
Like I said, petty. But I'd be interested in hearing your self-justification.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
I don't think you can compare sexual orientation and religion, because you can choose your religion but not your sexual orientation (IMHO).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I really hate it when smart people waste time on "meta-arguing".
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
(Do you know what's really fun? When I saw the title of this thread I was sure it would be about the fact that the 6th of June this year will be the 06/06/06 and some people think the devil will come on Earth or whatever. )
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anna: I don't think you can compare sexual orientation and religion, because you can choose your religion but not your sexual orientation (IMHO).
First, differences in one area do not make two things incomparable in other areas.
However, I understand your point, and agree that they are not exactly the same in that specific way, but I'm not at all sure that religion, for most people, is simply a choice. I bet there are many religious people here who do not feel that they choose to believe something is true. I bet the most considered among them believe something because it is true (to them). I bet to many religious people, "choosing" to stop believing as they do would be very much like my "choosing" to no longer be gay.
But I'm open to correction if someone like Dag or Belle wants to chime in. [edit: not to limit it to them.]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I just wanted to be petty and point out your hypocrisy in telling me I shouldn't create a simplified potrayl of "the other side" on abortion, but then have you turn around and do the same thing to "the other side" on SSM.
At that time, I was trying -- politely -- to explain that your portrayal of the "other side" of the abortion argument was flawed and inaccurate, based upon my own experiences on that other side, and suggesting that you not do it. Since you were at the time presenting yourself as an even-handed authority on the motivations of both groups and were in fact trying to be helpful by demonstrating what you felt were possible points of consensus, I didn't just want to slap you down by saying, "Hey, you're pretty darn wrong about that." My argument there was never that people shouldn't speculate about motivation in general, but rather that you shouldn't speak for pro-choicers about their motivations.
If you still fail to understand the distinction between these two cases, please drop me an email and I'll elaborate. As it is, I don't see any hypocrisy here.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I really hate it when smart people waste time on "meta-arguing".
I'd like to defend the "meta-arguing" (this would actually make this a meta-meta-arguing, but what can I do?)
I think it is no use to argue, if you don't agree on "the rules of arguing".
Should one cover his/hers ears with the hands, and keep repeating over and over an argument, never acknowledging other arguments? Should one attack "the other side" but get offended when he/she feels is attacked back?
You'll say "smart people" agree "by default" on matters like that. But what do you do when they don't?
[/meta-meta-arguing]
A.
[edited to add relevant quote]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:MY solution? Get rid of marriage entirely as a legal institution, replaced by civil unions for all. If people want to get married in a church, let 'em -- and let the churches apply whatever standards they want to that completely ceremonial, um, ceremony. But then make them sign a little paper that makes their "marriage" also a "civil union."
Would there be any limitations, in your theoretical system, on who could enter into civil unions (e.g. close relatives, minors, mulitple partners, etc.)? I know this strays dangerously close to comparing homosexuals to donkeys, but I'm just wondering what your opinion is.
For the record I didn't see my reason for opposing gay marriage on your list. I oppose gay marriage because I believe "marriage" is a social construct and therefore derives it's power from the consent of the community. Since I, as a member of the community, don't recognize the validity of same-sex relationships, I support efforts to legislate against same-sex marriage. My reasons for not accepting the validity of same-sex relationships are largely religious, but my reasons for opposing same-sex marriage are purely civic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Would there be any limitations, in your theoretical system, on who could enter into civil unions (e.g. close relatives, minors, mulitple partners, etc.)?
I would restrict civil unions to consenting adults who are not immediately related, and only permit any one individual to belong to a single civil union at one time. I don't see a problem with multiple partners, although of course corporations may want to rethink their insurance policies at that point.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Senoj: Your argument -
"I oppose same sex marriage" "Same Sex Marriage is a derived from the power of society" "I am a member of society" "I oppose same sex marriage" Therefore: "I oppose Same Sex Marriage"
Did I get it right?
If I did, your argument is circular.
And even if I didn't you didn't explain WHY you don't see SSM as valid.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
He did, actually :
quote:My reasons for not accepting the validity of same-sex relationships are largely religious,
And anyway you got his argument wrong, it is :
- Marriage derives its power from the consent of others - I do not consent to SSM - Therefore an SSM has no power - Therefore it is useless and should not be legislated.
If I understood it correctly, anyway.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ah, so it's back to the religion, separation and church and state dead horse again...
Which means that the opposion is still rooted in religion and is in no way civic. The civic argument is simply draped over god as one more thing to hide behind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Refer to my previous post, Pix. It's not quite circular, and only looks that way because he didn't explicitly lay out his premises.
It's a #2 argument, built on a #1 sub-premise.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well, I'll agree that it's a #2 argument at least. Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
I'm not saying that's a reason to oppose civil unions, I'm just saying there are things to consider as far as the impact to society, particularly economically.
Would we re-define who is a dependent? What about the probate laws, Dag, how would they be affected?
Now don't attack me and say that I'm saying denying people equal rights is okay if there's an economic impact - not saying that. Just saying that regardless, there are potential problems that need to be looked at and solutions that would need to be found if society does indeed move toward the civil union for any two consenting adults.
And it would need to be defined, as proved by SenojRetep's question and Tom's response - apparently people do think there should be some limits on who can form civil unions. How do we define those limits and who gets to decide on them?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Respectful as always, Karl
I think KoM got closest to the logical progression of why I oppose SSM. And (Tom) I see it significantly differently than a #2 argument. Saying I don't consent to the relationship and so oppose legislation that would force me to has nothing to do with saying whether I desire to similarly influence society to believe as I do, which I think is the core of argument #2.
I think I'm very consistent in how I approach my civic obligations, and personally I think repeating the tired phrase "separation of church and state" has very little bearing on my argument (IMO). The bastardized understanding of religion's role in public life that we abide by today would, I think, astound the majority of the founding fathers.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
Correst me if I'm wrong but with the speed it's possible to marry in the USA, wouldn't that already be possible if your friend and you happen not to be the same sex?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I think many of you are still missing the point.
Same Sex Marriage has nothing to do with 'Behavior'.
First and foremost, gay sex is legal, just as straight sex is legal. So, do you propose granting rights to one group engage in legal activity while you deny legal rights to another group also engaged in legal activity? I fail to see the sense in that.
Next, marriage isn't even remotely about behavior. In what way is it? Is marriage just a license to legally screw someone? Certainly not. It all completely about legal rights and responsibility. If you marry someone you take on legal responsibilities. You can't simply abandon this other person. It is also about legal rights. There are tax considerations, rights of inheritance, rights to make medical decisions, medical insurance, and a whole load of other rights that are being denied to people, who, if you must reduce it to behavior, are engage in legal behavior.
It doesn't matter if Donkeys want to marry rocks, donkey are not able to engage in or comprehend legal rights and responsibilities. It doesn't matter who you are having sex with, it's all about forming a legally binding family unit with all the associated right and responsibilities.
As far as Civil Unions, that's all any marriage is, a document on file at the court house legally establishing people as a legal family unit. Any religious component to marriage is strictly personal. Catholics are married in accordance and bound by the same standards of law as anyone else. When they get divorced, the same law apply to them as apply to everyone else. However, it is merely a Catholics personal beliefs that control how, when, and if they can get divorced in the eyes of the Church. That acceptance or prevention of divorce by the Church has no legal standing.
Whether you like it or not, whether you want to admit it or not, this is purely a legal and civil rights issue. Should two people living in nearly identical circumstances be granted the same rights and responsibilities as other people living under those same circumstances, and from a purely legal point of view, their is no justification for them to not be granted those rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
Now you are certainly free to argue the morality of same sex couplings just as long as you remember that straight sex is also immoral (other than in one specific set of legally defined circumstances). Fornication is immoral, straight people do it all the time. Promiscuity is immoral, straight people do it all the time. Adultry is immoral, straight people do it all the time. Yet, are you advocating that we take away the legal rights of all these people because they engaged in immoral activity; I didn't think so. The Bible clearly says chapter after chapter verse after verse that Adulterer's should be put to death, so when you use the Bible to denounce homosexuality are you equally proposing that the next stop after divorce court should be the execution chamber, I didn't think so.
This is purely a matter of law and civil rights, which is all marriage is, a legal and civil convention by which we grant rights and demand responsibilities. Morality doesn't come into play.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by esl (Member # 3143) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
I don't remember whether it was real or just proposed, probably the latter. I read somewhere about a society that did let friends form civil unions. Apparently these are the very close friends that are only lacking the romantic aspect of what we call marraige. I don't know about the economy, but I don't think letting friends without benefits have civil unions is such a bad idea. The article/whatever also mentioned the couple checking off which benefits they wanted with their civil union. So they can pick and choose exactly what kind of arrangement it is. I think it's an intriguing concept.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
What's to prevent people from marrying just so they can get covered by insurance?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
When I was about 19, I introduced two of my friends (one male, one female) to each other. A little over a month later, they were married. They didn't have any kind of romantic feelings toward each other, and both regularly slept with other people while they were married. They just wanted to get financial aid, and figured out that if they were married they wouldn't have to count their parents' incomes.
As soon as they got old enough that this was a moot point, they got a quickie divorce. Peter told me that they did finally end up having sex once, but it was after they had divorced, and it wasn't especially meaningful to either of them.
Try to keep in mind that our modern romantic views of marriage can be just as easily exploited by people of either gender.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Also, I'm sure it's been said here before, but our modern ideas of marriage being a way to cement a relationship with someone you've grown to love and want to spend the rest of your life with is a fairly recent invention. Marrying a friend so that you can share insurance is probably closer to the traditional purpose of marriage than the reasons most people here have tied the knot.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
TomDavidson
quote: quote:What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
What's to prevent people from marrying just so they can get covered by insurance?
Excellent point Tom. Of course, there is much more to it that getting insurance benefits. If your partner dies while the Civil Union or Marriage are in effect, you have legal rights to all his/her property. Further, upon dissolving the marriage/union in the event that the friendship has soured, either partner can make legal demands for continued support, and can claim half of your assets.
People are not going to risk everything by entering into a marriage/union just to get insurance benefits. With the benefits and rights, also comes substantial legal responsibilities.
Just passing it along. STeve/BlueWizard
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would note, in response to Senoj's "consent of society" argument, that there was a time when society did not consent to inter-racial marriages. Some people still don't, and would no doubt like to impose their view on the rest of society. Some of those even have religious reasons for believing as they do. What is the difference between this, and similar opposition to gay marriage?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:People are not going to risk everything by entering into a marriage/union just to get insurance benefits. With the benefits and rights, also comes substantial legal responsibilities
There are plenty of people who DO.
I knew a soldier who was going to marry a friend just so that they could split the additional pay he'd get for being married and overseas.
People marry for green cards (I know a girl who is considering this right now).
-pH
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:(Do you know what's really fun? When I saw the title of this thread I was sure it would be about the fact that the 6th of June this year will be the 06/06/06 and some people think the devil will come on Earth or whatever. [Smile] )
Me too, Anna!
Oddly, according to some groups, this could actually happen in the guise of said amendment. One way or the other, actually.
We're all doomed. Doooomed!
On a more serious note, I'm liking what Baron Samedi is saying in this thread, and also what KoM just said.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would note, in response to Senoj's "consent of society" argument, that there was a time when society did not consent to inter-racial marriages. Some people still don't, and would no doubt like to impose their view on the rest of society. Some of those even have religious reasons for believing as they do. What is the difference between this, and similar opposition to gay marriage?
Very little. I think it's the civic duty of any individual who feels that way to continue opposing community recognition of inter-racial marriages. I would say they are doing the right thing (civically) while disagreeing with their stance (morally).
The main problem with modern marriage (IMO) is that it no longer has a strong base in the community, which probably makes my central argument outdated. Couples can run off to Vegas, get married, and then move to any community in the country and claim marriage rights (and responsibilities, but let's not bring that up). While on one side I think this is good, because it brings us together as a nation, on the other side I think it takes away much of the power that marriages used to have.
Also, I should probably note at this point that I've not been talking about the federal marriage amendment, per se. A federal amendment would serve the ends I desire, but in exactly the wrong way (by further removing marriage from the purview of the communities from which it derives its strength). I'm more in favor of changing local and state laws and constitutions than in further federalizing the institution. I think the patchwork that other posters have indicated as a bad thing, is what I'd prefer (at least in the short term). I'd rather have consensus emerge than be imposed.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:(Do you know what's really fun? When I saw the title of this thread I was sure it would be about the fact that the 6th of June this year will be the 06/06/06 and some people think the devil will come on Earth or whatever. [Smile] )
"Why, this is hell. Nor are we out of it."
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:it's the civic duty of any individual who feels that way to continue opposing community recognition of inter-racial marriages.
Seriously?
Senoj, I get what you are saying--right to opinion, and all that. But in my mind that right does not extend to the right to persecute and restrict the rights of others.
If opposing recognition of inter-racial marriages *isn't* illegal (and I'm not sufficiently sure of freedom of expression laws to state that it is illegal, though I suspect it is), then it should be, and I want to know who to call.
quote:I'd rather have consensus emerge than be imposed.
Maybe back in 1860 we should have waited until the South U.S. decided on thier own to give up slavery? (not that I am comparing not being able to get married to slavery, but the underlying prinicple is the same). Equal rights despite [insert distinction here]: a good thing.
Think of it like this: I, as a woman, have the right to marry a man. My male friend does not. And vice versa. I don't think that's equal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Couples can run off to Vegas, get married, and then move to any community in the country and claim marriage rights (and responsibilities, but let's not bring that up). While on one side I think this is good, because it brings us together as a nation, on the other side I think it takes away much of the power that marriages used to have.
While I don't disagree that marriage should be more sacrosanct than it is, it's worth noting that people have been having quickie Vegas marriages for longer than anyone on this board has been alive.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Very little. I think it's the civic duty of any individual who feels that way to continue opposing community recognition of inter-racial marriages. I would say they are doing the right thing (civically) while disagreeing with their stance (morally).
Well, that's consistent. Evil, but consistent.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A note for people commenting on the fact that gay sex is legal now: one of the major reasons cited for making marital recognition a fundamental constitutional due process right in the line of cases which did so is that marriage was the only way it was legal to have sex in this country for a very long time. Now that this is no longer the case, I doubt it will change any analysis. But it's an interesting side note, I think.
quote:You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance? I'm not saying that's a reason to oppose civil unions, I'm just saying there are things to consider as far as the impact to society, particularly economically. Would we re-define who is a dependent? What about the probate laws, Dag, how would they be affected?
I think the logistical problems are almost nil, Belle. It's one of the reasons I support expanding civil marriage to same sex couples.
Here's why I think they are nil. If we took every statute or case holding which is still active, we could run a search and replace on it:
1.) Replace each instance of "man" or "woman" with "person."
2.) Replace each instance of "husband" or "wife" with spouse.
3.) Replace each gender-specific pronoun or pronoun phrase with a non-gender-specific equivalent.
I bet there isn't more than one or two gender-specific doctrines left in marriage law. The most significant gender-specific doctrine yet is called "presumption of paternity" which states that any child born to a married woman is considered to be the child of the husband unless the husband was away during the time of conception. The exception could be modified simply to say, "when it is not physically possible for the spouse to have fathered the child."
Probate? Not a problem. Everything marriage contributed to probate is related to the fact that there is only one spouse at a time (a reason I don't think polygamy marriages would have to be recognized if same-sex marriages are). Dependence is based on laws of parental duty/right, child custody, and paternity, not marriage laws. Most states have gotten rid of gender-specific duties of support and service (the wife used to have a right to support from the husband, the husband to services from the wife). Now the rights flow in both directions (doctrinally if not in implementation).
Abandonment (the wife's duty to follow the husband) has been struck down in most states. Gender-specific alimony laws have been struck down. Hell, it used to be vagrancy for a husband to live off the earnings of his wife (living off her inheritance was another story ).
In short, I'm hard-pressed to think of a single gender-specific doctrine of marital law which is not easily and naturally translated. I'd love to see someone do a hornbook study of marriage laws in effect to prove this.
However, it would be a very powerful argument against civil gay marriage to show that a significant portion of marriage laws would have to be rewritten. There are a LOT of very smart advocates opposing same-sex marriage who are capable of finding the laws that would have to be rewritten, and they haven't done so.
On the religious side. I'm going to state something bluntly which I usually don't: I think Marriage as an institution necessarily involves a man and a woman. That is, I don't think there is such a thing as "same-sex Marriage" when viewed from a natural law perspective.
That being said, there are other elements of what I think is necessary to Marriage that are not reflected in the laws of our country. This is why I favor getting rid of civil marriage entirely and going with civil unions. Ideally, I'd like EVERYONE to stop thinking of the legal entity as "marriage" because I think the legal definition is so powerful that it backwashes into each person's concept of "Marriage" as a religious, social, or philosophical entity. I don't want to see that happen, nor do I think it would be right if it did happen.
People talk about law defining morality - it's one of the principle reasons raised in opposition to same sex marriage. One response to law defining morality is to alter the law so that it doesn't differ from "morality".
Another way is to ruthlessly break the link between law and morality in certain situations. Because I think every person should be generally free to define Marriage for him or herself, I want the government affecting that as little as possible.
(Please, do not say I'm trying to remove morality from law. I'm not, but it would be a tiresome diversion to fully explain right now.)
Therefore I envision government's contribution to marriage being legal recognition of civil unions between one consenting adult person and another without consanguinity (however that is defined in a state). It creates a package of legal duties and rights and also creates a default designatee in a host of situations: medical decision making during incapacity, probate, etc.
The two positions I've advocated for most strongly on this board are generally not viewed as co-existing in a lot of people. Although I think the general view might be wrong, the public advocates on each side are generally in lockstep on both issues. However, in my case, each illustrate a basic principle I try to apply when deciding what the law should be: People should generally be allowed the largest amount of room possible for the exercise of their own conscience, but the more a person other than the actor is directly affected by the actor's conduct, the stronger the justification for the use of the coercive power of law is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If opposing recognition of inter-racial marriages *isn't* illegal (and I'm not sufficiently sure of freedom of expression laws to state that it is illegal, though I suspect it is), then it should be, and I want to know who to call.
I'm a little confused by what you're saying.
Are you saying that you think it should be illegal for someone to oppose recognition of inter-racial marriages?
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Dag, I like your reasoning. And nicely put.
Yes, I think it should be illegal to oppose *legal* recognition of inter-racial marriages, because to do so is discrimination based on race. I'm not sure it actually *is* illegal, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you.
What do you mean by "oppose"? I'm haveing serious free speech concerns here.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:People should generally be allowed the largest amount of room possible for the exercise of their own conscience, but the more a person other than the actor is directly affected by the actor's conduct, the stronger the justification for the use of the coercive power of law is.
For the record, I very much agree with this, even if I may not stand by your definition of "person". Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
quote:What do you mean by "oppose"? I'm haveing serious free speech concerns here.
Enacting laws or rules based on the notion that one race is somehow superior or more valid than another should be illegal. People who support non-recognition of inter-racial marraiage are, IMO, discrimiating based on race.
I don't know whether just some individual states or the whole country has a law banning discrimiation based on race, sex, creed, etc, but if the region within which someone is proposing not recognizing inter-racial marriage (legally, not within a religion) has one of those laws, then it's illegal, right? I think it should be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're mixing two concepts here: opposition and enactment.
Let's use a scenario. Private citizen Ken Keating Kain decides he doesn't like that inter-racial marriages are recognized. He takes the following steps:
1.) Forms an organization whose stated goal is the passage of a state constitutional amendment banning inter-racial marriage.
2.) Solicits and receives donations based on an honest description of his goal.
3.) Buys ads on television to raise awareness.
4.) Files the necessary papers to put the proposed amendment on the ballot.
5.) Gathers signatures to qualify the ballot initiative.
6.) Campaigns for passage of the initiative.
7.) Votes in favor of the initiative on election day.
Which of these should be illegal?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Possibly the first one; it (along with number three) would certainly be illegal in most of Europe. Americans have a more laissez-faire attitude to that kind of thing, though, lacking Europe's recent history of nastiness.
Presumably, it is the job of the courts to protect us from people like this, yes? (Can a constitutional amendment be found un-constitutional?)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Can a constitutional amendment be found un-constitutional?
By definition, no.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can a constitutional amendment be found un-constitutional?
State constitutional amendments can be found to violate the federal constitution and will be struck down on that basis. This absolutely violates the federal constitution - we have caselaw absolutely on point - so it would be struck down.
My thought is that all 7 should be legal, mostly because of a technical view of the way cases and controversies have to arise.
I can see striking down the presence of the initiative on the ballot, but, for the same technical reasons, I think it'd be better to strike the amendment immediately after passage (counting on about 20 groups to have a facial challenge drafted and waiting).
Regardless, I think all 7 acts are constitutionally protected exercises of assembly, free speech, and petitioning the government. If the ballot itself were struck down, 5 would be punishable as fraud and 7 would be impossible. 6 would be a nullity - there would be nothing to campaign for.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
None of those should be illegal.
However if he manages to get it passed, the courts should strike it down rendering all his effort pointless.
The only real problem would be if he managed to get a ban on interracial marriage into the constitution. Then we'd all be in trouble. My self included, since, depending how it was written and interpretted it could annul my own marriage. (I am white/native american. My husband is Jewish.)
Pix
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:None of those should be illegal. However if he manages to get it passed, the courts should strike it down rendering all his effort pointless.
Or, I could have said this and saved half a screen. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Never the less, Dag, you posted first =)
My terseness gets me into trouble. I'm often times misunderstood because I assume my reader knows too many of my premises as givens.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:State constitutional amendments can be found to violate the federal constitution and will be struck down on that basis.
Oh yeah. We are talking about two different constitutions.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: You know, there ARE logistical problems to consider with the civil union idea. What's to prevent people from forming civil unions just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
I'm not saying that's a reason to oppose civil unions, I'm just saying there are things to consider as far as the impact to society, particularly economically.
I don't mean to point out the obvious, but these days, many people have friends of the opposite gender. What's to prevent them from marrying just so they can get a friend covered by insurance?
That you think marriage might suffer a sudden and drastic decline in quality and commitment if we allow homosexuals to marry reveals significant bias.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Would we re-define who is a dependent? What about the probate laws, Dag, how would they be affected?
Now don't attack me and say that I'm saying denying people equal rights is okay if there's an economic impact - not saying that. Just saying that regardless, there are potential problems that need to be looked at and solutions that would need to be found if society does indeed move toward the civil union for any two consenting adults.
And it would need to be defined, as proved by SenojRetep's question and Tom's response - apparently people do think there should be some limits on who can form civil unions. How do we define those limits and who gets to decide on them?
I think Tom laid out decent guidelines for marriage. Of age, consenting, and not immediately related -- that last condition thrown in to avoid both sexual abuse and the dangers of inbreeding. I have no problem with first cousins marrying.
And that looks a lot like... current marriage laws. Simply with gender requirements removed, since it seems society has discovered that love and commitment aren't determined by the shape or function of genetalia.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Regarding Dagonee's long post above; very good points made there.
In the shorter post nearer above, regarding the actions of Private citizen Ken Keating Kain and his Seven efforts to stop inter-racial marriage. I think all of those are legal, but MOST of them involve the cooperation of other people who I am confident would be very uncooperative.
For example, buying television or newspaper ads to promote anti-inter-racial marriage views. Very few modern mainstream TV, Radio, and Newspapers are going to allow that kind of speech on their public mediums. It's too outrageous and would most likely anger the majority of the people who are paying the bills.
Now realistically, minor newspapers, etc... who already have a view favoring anti-inter-racial marriage, would likely to take the advertisement. And there might be an obscure public access White Power cable TV show, but I suspect it would have a very small audience.
People also have a right to lobby government and suggest laws that support their own personal view. That is part of the democratic process.
So, I think all the suggested things should be legal, we can't restict freedom, especially freedom of speech, just because the people speaking don't agree with our views.
So, it should be legal to oppose inter-racial marriage and to promote that view, even to the point of lobbying Congress to change the laws. Of course, Congress is never going to act on Law that would so enrage a majority of the population. In other words, they are free to take action within the bounds of the law, but they should not expect to get results.
Freedom isn't only for the people who agree with you.
Of course, it should be clear that I am making general statements here. This is in no way directed at Dagonee, whose comments seem very reasonable to me.
Just a thought.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: So, it should be legal to oppose inter-racial marriage and to promote that view, even to the point of lobbying Congress to change the laws.
And when the law conflicts with the basic rights of citizens, as defined by the Constitution, it should even be legal to change the Constitution. But when we do that, we need to remember that we're not just bullying through a law; we're redefining the Rights of Man.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep. And it should be done sparingly.
And (I can't resist) not by the courts.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I think that the argument that "gay marriage" or civil union will undermine our current form of marriage in our society is utter tripe. People who use that argument like to conveniently forget that, in an America where "gay marriage" is currently not legal in the overwhelming majority of the states and in a majority of those states is currently illegal according to state law, 50% of all marriages STILL end in divorce.
It's rediculous to say that giving the one segment of the population a right that they do not currently have will cause heterosexual couples to divorce or choose not to marry. In the last 10 years or so, a tiny segment of the population has risen up to fight for the right to marry and/or have a civil union. All of a sudden, that one segment, the one that desperately wants the legal rights afforded to married couples, are being pointed to by those who fear the breakdown of the family and being called the problem.
Since this country does have a separation of church and state, no religion would be forced to perform a marriage for a homosexual couple if they didn't want to. What it would do, is give monagamous, loving homosexual couples legal rights. Rights that include: rights of inheritance and spousal priviledges. The right to sit at your loved one's bedside as they lay sick or dying in a hospital with family only rules and the right to make determinations about that persons healthcare if they are unable to make decisions for themselves, rather than giving that right to family members that may not have seen or spoken to them since they came out.
Why should parents and/or siblings who turned their back on their relative 10, 20 or more years ago when they found out that their son/daugther/brother/sister was gay have more right to make these determinations or inherit property than the partner that stood by this person's side throughout their lifetime? Why should grandparents who have had little or no contact with a grandchild due to estrangement with their own children be preferred guardians over the other parent who has helped to lovingly raise a child?
Religious beliefs aside, if this amendment is added to the Constitution it will not be protecting the so called "sanctity of marriage," it will instead be telling a significant portion of society that because they love differently, they are inferior to others. It will give hate-mongers and bigots standing in our society to make the argument that because homosexuals are inferior, crimes against homosexuals should not be classified as "hate crimes," even when those crimes are hate based.
Don't support a law that tells a minority group that they are inferior because of who their sexual partners are. CERTAINLY don't support a Constitutional Amendment that does so.
In the words of Whoopi Goldberg, "If you have such a problem with gay people getting married, don't marry one."
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
After reading through this I have come to the conclusion that I do not consent to straight people getting married.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Ok, I read the discussion of the inter-racial marriage opposition and I think I might see why people are opposed to gay marriage. Will people in 50 years view opposition to gay marriage the same way we view opposition to inter-racial marriages? If you believe homosexual behavior is a sin, if homosexual marriage is allowed, does that make you a villian?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: Ok, I read the discussion of the inter-racial marriage opposition and I think I might see why people are opposed to gay marriage. Will people in 50 years view opposition to gay marriage the same way we view opposition to inter-racial marriages? If you believe homosexual behavior is a sin, if homosexual marriage is allowed, does that make you a villian?
I don't think so. What I do think is that the religious community and more specifically the Christian community (of which I am a member) is trying to force their religious beliefs into law which should be a big no-no in our country. One of the reasons that people came to this country was to escape from religious persecution in countries where there was no separation of church and state. You are certainly entitled to any beliefs that you choose to have. I will stand up and argue that atheists have the right not to believe in God. I'll even make the argument that Satanists have the right to believe in whatever they want. SO LONG as those beliefs do not infringe on my civil liberties.
People who don't believe in inter-racial marriages have every right to express that opinion and so do people who don't agree with gay marriage. But that doesn't give them the right to infringe on other people's civil liberties because of their beliefs.
If an amendment is passed banning gay marriage, I believe that opponents of gay marriage are more likely to be villified in 50 years not less.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Thank you for your kind permission.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Though I don't think it is necessary, as every Democrat except for one, and even a couple Republicans are against this measure (which dooms it to failure) in the Senate, I just emailed both Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, the Senators from Michigan to voice my intense disapproval for this proposed amendment. Carl Levin stated right on his website that he opposes the measure, and I hope Stabenow agrees.
I do not oppose individual states choosing not to allow gay marriage. Marriage, as a religious institution shouldn't be legislated by anyone, I think it's ridiculous that we're even talking about it. But the legal rights inherent in a marriage are where the government comes into play, and restricting those rights is a violation of civil rights. It doesn't matter who the person is, be they gay, straight, black, white, native, naturalized citizen, young or old, Jew, Christian, or Muslim (etc), they are all afforded equal protection under the law.
If churches want to deny gay marriages, that is their right. But government must provide a legal substitute, a la civil unions, to those that want them, that affords every legal right that a marriage would afford to a straight couple.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that the argument that "gay marriage" or civil union will undermine our current form of marriage in our society is utter tripe. People who use that argument like to conveniently forget that, in an America where "gay marriage" is currently not legal in the overwhelming majority of the states and in a majority of those states is currently illegal according to state law, 50% of all marriages STILL end in divorce.
It's rediculous to say that giving the one segment of the population a right that they do not currently have will cause heterosexual couples to divorce or choose not to marry.
I'm kind of tired of doing this every six months, so I'll merely state that your arguments "showing" this to be "tripe" are actually showing some other argument to be tripe.
By and large, when same sex marriage opponents speak of weakening marriage, they are not saying that a particular individual marriage will end in divorce that wouldn't have because of gay marriage. They see same sex marriage as a fundamental redefinition of the institution of marriage that drives it away from the fundamental purpose of the institution.
And it is. Failure to recognize that is only going to have your arguments dismissed out of hand by the people you need to convince to change their mind. Pointing to obscure tribes where something that could be seen to be like same sex marriage if one squints hard enough is not going to alter the fundamental fact that same sex marriage represents a fundamental alteration to marriage as it has been viewed in the West for hundreds and hundreds of years.
quote:What it would do, is give monagamous, loving homosexual couples legal rights. Rights that include: rights of inheritance and spousal priviledges. The right to sit at your loved one's bedside as they lay sick or dying in a hospital with family only rules and the right to make determinations about that persons healthcare if they are unable to make decisions for themselves, rather than giving that right to family members that may not have seen or spoken to them since they came out.
It should be noted that nothing in the law prevents a homosexual partner from receiving an inheritance or being appointed as a medical decision maker. Do people think that single people have no say in these matters?
Of the legal constructs you mentioned, only spousal privilege is barred to same sex couples. The difference is in the mechanisms needed to avail oneself of those legal constructs.
I will plead once again for those who support change in the law to make arguments founded in reality. Clearly erroneous statements (such as the one saying same-sex couples lack the right to inheritance or to appoint a medical guardian of their choice) and restructuring opposing arguments so they are easy to refute simply provide an easy way for opponents to refute your arguments.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Matters of civil rights should NOT be voted on by the general public. Whether you are for or against gay marriage, the matter should be up to the court system to decide.
Ugh. You are absolutely right that civil rights should not be subject to democratic approval. But you are absolutely wrong in thinking that 'the court system' is any more legitimate an authority.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There has to be some mechanism to be able to put into law "These are human rights that everybody has, but those aren't."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There is: amending the constitution. Which takes legislative action, which is neither judicial nor voting by the general public (at least, not directly).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You make a good point, which brings us full circle back to the first post in this thread.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
And why that person must be stopped just as Dagonee's Mr Kain must be stopped.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Um, quite the opposite. If you accept Irregardles' notion the proper place to define civil rights is through ammendment of the constitution, then she's going about it exactly right.
If you say she should be opposed, I've got not problems with that. I wouldn't excpect you to agree with her. But if you are saying she should be stopped from writing her senators, that's not good.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I chose my words poorly. I should have said "Defeated"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Ok then. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This is going back a bit
quote:Pooka, straight guys aren't gonna go gay. No matter how much hairy man sex they can get, that's not what straight guys are into. You might think the idea is two guys is so hot that, hey, why wouldn't they? but straight guys don't think it's hot. And having it be socially acceptable will not MAKE them think it's hot. Their brain isn't wired that way.
I'll say bluntly that any man who can get off on a body part not belonging exclusively to a woman is potentially gay.
If I believed people weren't turnable, I would have no problem with Gay marriage. But people are influenced by their environment. That's why all of us gather here everyday and read and post. We hope to be influenced or to influence someone else.
Another piece of evidence that came up in the last few days was the changing of English law so that when a man died his kin were not obligated to marry his widow. I mean, that almost sounds perverted to us today. Good change, right? But the effect was that women no longer inherited property and their value in the society dropped.
In a perfect world the worth of a woman would not reside solely in marriage status. But show me where that is true.
P.S. I wanted to acknowledge KarlEd's earlier statement:
quote:I bet to many religious people, "choosing" to stop believing as they do would be very much like my "choosing" to no longer be gay.
But I'm open to correction if someone like Dag or Belle wants to chime in. [edit: not to limit it to them.]
But you stopped believing (in Mormonism). Unless you never believed it. If one cannot change such beliefs, what is the point of trying to educate away prejudice? I know, I know, people are seeing me as the prejudiced one in this case. But if I can't be taught and you can't be taught, then we just go on with our lives, I guess.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
My marriage.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But it's in your marriage. If your wife were not married to you, she'd just be out there, Ally McBeal or Murphy Brown. Competent, but never on top.
P.S. Why does no one like Captain Janeway?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I like Captain Janeway just fine. I think she chose to live in a permenant moral gray area during most of the show, one that Picard would have shaken his fist at, but she kept the crew together and got them home, that'd commendable.
quote:I'll say bluntly that any man who can get off on a body part not belonging exclusively to a woman is potentially gay.
This position disturbs me to no end. When you get your Y Card, I'll accept your position as something approaching....I don't know, sanity. Until then, female insights into the depths of the male mind continue to amuse me, but lack in seriousness.
And never on top of what? Didn't Murphy Brown have her own show? She sure bossed enough people around.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Dagonee It should be noted that nothing in the law prevents a homosexual partner from receiving an inheritance or being appointed as a medical decision maker. Do people think that single people have no say in these matters?
Dagonee, I don't always agree with you but I must say you at least seem to be taking a fair-minded and balanced approach. It has been very interesting reading your posts.
Regarding the section quoted above, what you say is true, but you don't quite say enough.
Yes, a gay couples can hire a lawyer and invoke Medical Power of Attorney for each other. But if the blood-family contests that Power of Attorney, there is probably a good chance that it will be turned over to the Family. Again, that is not guaranteed, it depends on a lot of factors, but there is a real chance it will be revoked.
Further, they can hire a lawyer and invoke General Power of Attorney, and they can do things like open joint checking accounts. There is a lot of legal manuvering that gay people can do to try to create the same equivalent legal protections as civil union/marraige, but even the best of these is extremely expensive, and also falls short of Civil Union.
Each person can name the other in their Will as a means of protecting their assets and assuring those assets go to the person they want them to go to. But the blood-family can protest or contest the Will, and if nothing else consume all the money in a legal battle that assures that even though they will not get it, neither will the gay 'spouse'.
Marriage or Civil Union is not so easy to revoke, and it incorporates a broad range of protections with in a single and AFFORDABLE legal framework. The alternative, to creates assorted legal document in an attempt to duplicate marriage, is extremely expensive to DO, and extremely expensive to UN-DO. And, like it or not, the courts will tend to favor the blood-family over a gay lover.
So, while you are absolutely correct, we must consider the fairness of forcing one couple to spend many thousands of dollars creating legal protections that fall short of marriage/civil union, then, in the event of break-up, to spend many more thousands of dollars undoing those legal documents, while other couple have a quick, cheap, and easy way of creating a better set of protection.
Further, though it depends on the nature of the courts, Marriage is alot harder to contest than an assortment of 'almost' legal protections. Blood-family can very easily contest any legal documents, and hope for a favorable court, or at least hope to have enough money to out last the gay 'spouse'.
So, again, you are right, but it hardly constitutes a fair and just system. Although, I'm not intending to say that you implied it was fair and just. I'm just expanding on that aspect of the discussion.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
My worth is not defined soly by my marriage.
How are you measuring worth anyway? I find I want to talk about how much I made when I met my husband. But that's not my worth. Though I think it might be in this context.
I'm baffled by the "On top" comment. Do you think women should dominate marriage? My hubby and I have an equal partnership.
No one likes Janeway because she was a poorly written character in a poorly written show.
Pooka, did you have a boyfriend leave you for a guy? Do you have latency or self esteme issues? Or conversely, do you simply not see how beautiful women are and can't imagine why most men and a handful of women love them? Or do you think men are so beautiful that how can other men resist?
Your paranoid fear that men are aching to boink other men is completely alien to me.
Anyway, if your sole objection to gay marriage is that men will marry other men and this will hurt women, how do you feel about Lesbian marriage? Should lesbians be allowed to marry but not gay men?
Pix
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote:I'll say bluntly that any man who can get off on a body part not belonging exclusively to a woman is potentially gay.
This position disturbs me to no end. When you get your Y Card, I'll accept your position as something approaching....I don't know, sanity. Until then, female insights into the depths of the male mind continue to amuse me, but lack in seriousness.
While I can't imagine that I would ever put it the way she did, what she said makes sense to me.
*shows off Y card*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In a perfect world the worth of a woman would not reside solely in marriage status. But show me where that is true.
I'm guessing that a large number of both the single and the married women on this board would find this offensive. I'll even go out on a limb and say that any women who believe otherwise are likely to wind up miserably unhappy regardless of marital status.
------
Porter, are you saying that if you were able to marry me, and I were more sexually available than Beverly, you'd consider it? If not me, what about the much-more-attractive Eddie Whiteshoes? Or Dagonee, if you're drawn to men with big brains?
Did you only marry Beverly because you couldn't get sex any other way?
(Note: I'm assuming the answer to all these hypotheticals is "no.")
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Wow, yeah, I would definitely find the idea of my worth being defined by my marriage offensive, if it wasn't so laughable.
So, any man who finds, say, necks attractive is potentially gay? I mean, in a way that a man who only finds breasts attractive isn't? Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Since you are focusing your attention not at what pooka was trying to say but on the manner she said it, here's a related statment:
I believe that most people, men and women, can choose to be attracted to men and can choose to be attracted to women.
I guess that would make most people, using pooka's terminology, potentially gay.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Porter, are you saying that if you were able to marry me, and I were more sexually available than Beverly, you'd consider it? If not me, what about the much-more-attractive Eddie Whiteshoes? Or Dagonee, if you're drawn to men with big brains?
Did you only marry Beverly because you couldn't get sex any other way?
(Note: I'm assuming the answer to all these hypotheticals is "no.")
The answer to all these questions is no, and I don't understand why you are asking them. You thought you knew the answer to them before asking, so you probably think that you've proven a point by forcing me to say "no".
I do not know what that point is.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: Wow, yeah, I would definitely find the idea of my worth being defined by my marriage offensive, if it wasn't so laughable.
So, any man who finds, say, necks attractive is potentially gay? I mean, in a way that a man who only finds breasts attractive isn't?
Y'know, given how obese American men are these days... I don't think being attracted to breasts is going to save anyone. Fear teh Gay!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BlueWizard, I get all that. Believe me - this is why I support civil marriage rights for same sex couples.
I merely corrected an error - one propagated by someone who, at minimum, desires generally the same outcome I do in this dispute - which is easily refutable and the propagation of which makes that desired outcome more difficult. I purposely did not go beyond that, so as not to mix the correction with argument on my side.
You lay it out very nicely. One thing that I would like to hear from those who favor civil unions for same sex couples that are legally distinct from civil marriages: Are there any duties or rights which attach to civil marriage that you would not wish to make part of the civil unions available to same sex couples?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Murphy Brown was a commentator working under an Anchor. He was not her supervisor, of course. Be he was the top dog as far as the journalists were concerned and they resented him for it.
I think that may be why, in the end, women usually choose not to be in the lead. It's lonely at the top and women find that inherently stressful in a way men do not.
Since people are apparently morbidly curious about what bizarre thing I'm going to say next, it is simply that women have a diverse rubric of mental characteristics but not of physical characteristics. Men are the reverse. A man gets a lot more flack for being prone to mental illness than a woman, and a woman is more stressed by being too fat, too tall, too ethnic etc. At least, that is my thought on what makes men and women really different and why they can't be interchanged. If we attempt to redefine these rubrics, none of use can predict what the results will be.
(minor word choice editing)
And a P.S. For instance: will gay men still be attracted to men who have grown up in a world where gayness is accepted? I can't provide an argument for why they would. Is very much a butterfly effect kind of speculation.
If you don't know from that that I oppose Lesbian marriages as well, I don't know how to explain it to you.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Have you thought that the extremity with which you perceive these difference might be unique to your local culture? I mean, I can see where you are coming from, but at no where near the level you seem to perceive it.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Local like first degree relatives or local like American culture as it is depicted on TV? P.S. I guess I would ask what your perception of the difference between men and women is. If there is no difference, why would anyone be exclusively hetero- or homo- sexual?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So in addition to causing fewer rights for women, you also believe that our culture and society is too fragile to withstand change. Sort of a "Don't touch it, it might fall down" house of cards?
I'm sorry, pooka, but society is constantly and inevitably changing. Even if gay people never get equal rights mens and women's roles will grow and change.
Simply worrying about the butterfly effect of a change that effects are relatively small number of people is not much of an argument.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Simply worrying about the butterfly effect of a change that effects are relatively small number of people is not much of an argument.
Whether or not the butterfly effect argument is valid or not, I think that SSM being legal or not will affect a lot of people, and not just those wanting to (now or in the future) get married to someone of the same gender.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
How, MPH? What specific detremental affects will it have on what people?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't know what the specific affects will be, but I belive that significantly re-defining this central unit of society will have major and long-lasting affects on society as a whole.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
It's not a "significant" redefinition. It's not a redefinition at all for 90+% of the people involved in it. It's only a redefinition for those who don't have it now and deserve it just as much as others do.
And a vague "I think something bad and undefined will happen" isn't much of an argument either.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Don't blame the homosexuals for changing the fundamental family unit. They are just the most recent victims of it.
Blame the Troubadors.
Blame the authors.
Blame the romance novelists and epic poets.
Blame Shakespeare.
Marriage has been slipping from a union of economic viability--centered on aquiring security, wealth, and a generation of workers to support you in old age, to a thing that involves a word I haven't seen in this debate for 4 pages.
Love.
As Love--romantic love, destined one person to another, love at first site--has become the main reason for marriage, other factors that used to limit a person's choices have fallen to the wayside.
Where before a man considered the dowry of his wife perhaps first, or her ability to bear children, now he is supposed to be looking for love. Racial, economic, and political differences are supposed to melt away by eternal love that brings people together.
For some it doesn't. For others it does.
Now the last hurdles, the need to reproduce, and the Christian faith of their friends faces love.
Forget Sex.
Forget Money.
Forget the Law.
This is the question.
Can a man and a man be in love?
Can a woman and a woman be in love?
If so, should not we celebrate, consecrate, and sanctify that love?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If so, should not we celebrate, consecrate, and sanctify that love?
That is the question.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Or, on a completely side note, I overheard the following:
I will vote to change the Constitution to define "Marriage" as the union of one man and one woman, when they change the Declaration of Independence to define "Happiness" as the union of one man, two women, and a hotel room in Vegas. Viva "the Pursuit of Happiness."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not a "significant" redefinition.
It is a central redefinition. Not acknowledging this is not going to help you convince the people you need to convince.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:That is the question.
Do you doubt it, mph?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do you even need to ask that, Bob? I haven't hidden the fact that I am against SSM.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: the problem is, if you're defining Marriage as an economic tool for the raising of children is that it lost that meaning aaaaages ago. Due to No Fault Divorce (mostly a bad thing in my book) and Women's Lib (mostly a good thing in my book)
If you define marriage as "A Man and Woman who love eachother" then it's not such a leap to "Two people who love eachother."
What is the specific definition that SSM/CU opponents are trying to defend? Can we get them to actually agree on a definition?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Simply worrying about the butterfly effect of a change that effects are relatively small number of people is not much of an argument.
Whether or not the butterfly effect argument is valid or not, I think that SSM being legal or not will affect a lot of people, and not just those wanting to (now or in the future) get married to someone of the same gender.
Well... no. It didn't affect me when you married Beverly, and it won't affect me when other people marry those they love. And even if it's someday legally permissible for me to marry a man, Pooka's assertions aside, I'm not terribly eager to leap into bed with one.
I have two neighbors, Harry and Farley. They're among the best people I know, and have been partners much longer than I've been alive -- married in all but name. They helped raise me, and I love them like uncles. I ask you for a straight answer, how will it affect you -- at all -- if they're someday permitted to marry each other?
Instead of vague hints of unclear danger, why not spell out exactly what you fear?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It's not a "significant" redefinition.
It is a central redefinition. Not acknowledging this is not going to help you convince the people you need to convince.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your definition of marriage. As Pix said, do you define it in terms of economic rights or in terms of love?
And in either case, I have trouble understanding what would be so difficult about permitting homosexuals as well as heterosexuals to participate in it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lalo, you're not looking for a straight answer. You are looking for points to score.
I never said two specific guys get married that it would directly affect me.
quote:I belive that significantly re-defining this central unit of society will have major and long-lasting affects on society as a whole.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Murphy Brown was a commentator working under an Anchor. He was not her supervisor, of course. Be he was the top dog as far as the journalists were concerned and they resented him for it.
I think that may be why, in the end, women usually choose not to be in the lead. It's lonely at the top and women find that inherently stressful in a way men do not.
Since people are apparently morbidly curious about what bizarre thing I'm going to say next, it is simply that women have a diverse rubric of mental characteristics but not of physical characteristics. Men are the reverse. A man gets a lot more flack for being prone to mental illness than a woman, and a woman is more stressed by being too fat, too tall, too ethnic etc. At least, that is my thought on what makes men and women really different and why they can't be interchanged. If we attempt to redefine these rubrics, none of use can predict what the results will be.
(minor word choice editing)
And a P.S. For instance: will gay men still be attracted to men who have grown up in a world where gayness is accepted? I can't provide an argument for why they would. Is very much a butterfly effect kind of speculation.
If you don't know from that that I oppose Lesbian marriages as well, I don't know how to explain it to you.
To summarize your points:
1) Men are physically deficient, and women are mentally defective. If men married men and if women married women, it's unclear (and ergo dangerous) which partner would fall into each handicap.
2) Homosexuals are more attracted to the forbidden taboo of homosexuality than they actually are to the same gender.
Pooka, if I'm interpreting this correctly, I think you need to seriously re-examine your beliefs in rather questionable gender stereotypes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If you define marriage as "A Man and Woman who love eachother" then it's not such a leap to "Two people who love eachother."
But it is a leap; it's a change to the definition.
Further, "two" and "who love each other" are clearly insufficient as definitional characteristics. Clearly, marriage means something other than a couple merely being in love.
Some specific questions for anyone who opposes extending civil marriage to same sex couples:
Are there any specific legal benefits or duties of marriage that you think should not be available to same sex couples?
Some of the duties:
Duty of cares. Duty of fidelity. Duty to share property acquired through efforts exerted during the marriage. Duty of mutual support.
Some of the benefits:
Joint tax returns. Default designatee for medical decisions, default inheritor (with children), etc. Marital communication privilege. Marital immunity against testifying against ones spouse. Spousal benefits (insurance, Social Security) "Automatic" right of adoption of spouse's children when other parent is dead or has relinquished parental rights. (It's not really automatic but close.)
What I'm trying to get at is, if we looked at it strictly mechanically as a package of legal rights and responsibilities, which rights and responsibilities should not be available to same sex couples.
The reason I post this under The Pixiest's comment is that the two ideas are related. It is a redefinition of marriage, but if we make it clear that these rights and responsibilities can be provided without redefining marriage, opposition may be reduced.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Lalo, you're not looking for a straight answer. You are looking for points to score.
I never said two specific guys get married that it would directly affect me.
quote:I belive that significantly re-defining this central unit of society will have major and long-lasting affects on society as a whole.
No, MPH, I'm looking for an answer. You are a member of society -- and if it's going to have "major and long-lasting" effects on you, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what you feel those effects will be.
Or if you're immune to the consequences of homosexual marriage, then whom do you feel is vulnerable? And what do you believe will happen to them?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
But Porter, that's argument from innuendo. You have to state your case not just hint that something nefarious is over the horizon if we go that way.
There was a senator from SD who lost his office in... '02? I believe it was... who argued just that way. "I'm concerned that if we follow that plan there will be something very troubling that might happen in the future. And that worries me." He never actually said anything. He just fretted vaguely and publicly.
It's not so much an argument as it is Marketing.
Pix
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It's not a "significant" redefinition.
It is a central redefinition. Not acknowledging this is not going to help you convince the people you need to convince.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your definition of marriage. As Pix said, do you define it in terms of economic rights or in terms of love?
And in either case, I have trouble understanding what would be so difficult about permitting homosexuals as well as heterosexuals to participate in it.
Lalo, my definition of marriage is that it is a sacrament bestowed by each spouse upon the other, a religious vocation, and a reflection of God's love on earth, entailing creative aspects and a living reflection of the Trinity.
An utterly useless definition for purposes of this discussion (although certainly NOT useless in other contexts), but one which would undergo a major redefinition were same sex couples to be included in it.
Civil marriage - or civil unions, as I would prefer to call them - is simply a legal entity that is made available to couples wishing to declare their commitment to live together and join their lives and the rights and responsibilities we make available to those couples both for their benefit and for legal convenience.
BTW, I flat out do not intend to argue about what the "real" definition of marriage is, with anyone. There are theological and philosophical discussions in which I might be willing to expand on these thoughts, but it is simply not part of this discussion for me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lalo, you keep putting more incorrect words into my mouth. It appears as though you are doing it deliberately.
quote:But Porter, that's argument from innuendo. You have to state your case not just hint that something nefarious is over the horizon if we go that way.
If I were trying to argue my case, possibly. But in this thread, I haven't tried in the slightest to get anybody who doesn't already agree with me to change their mind. I don't have to do that.
And in a situation where I have no doubt that I would get dog-piled, such as this disussion, I don't feel inclined to honor requests to do so.
It is because this is being treated as an argument/dabate that I'm not going to elaborate. If it were a respectful discussion, possibly. But it hasn't been*.
*not all of this discussion has taken place in this thread
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag, I REALLY like the way your argument is laid out detailing the rights and responsibilities. I think we agree on almost everything from a legal aspect.
But I think you'll find that after you lay all that out, and even get people to agree with you point by point that they'll end with "But I don't think we should redefine marriage just for that"
And you're back to arguing the definition of marriage.
And as one person told me (in an email so I won't say who it is) A civil union is just another word for marriage and since I'm against redefining marriage I'm against civil unions too. (I didn't put it in quotes because that's not an exact quote.)
Pix
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It's not a "significant" redefinition.
It is a central redefinition. Not acknowledging this is not going to help you convince the people you need to convince.
If you don't mind, I'd like to hear your definition of marriage. As Pix said, do you define it in terms of economic rights or in terms of love?
And in either case, I have trouble understanding what would be so difficult about permitting homosexuals as well as heterosexuals to participate in it.
Lalo, my definition of marriage is that it is a sacrament bestowed by each spouse upon the other, a religious vocation, and a reflection of God's love on earth, entailing creative aspects and a living reflection of the Trinity.
An utterly useless definition for purposes of this discussion (although certainly NOT useless in other contexts), but one which would undergo a major redefinition were same sex couples to be included in it.
Civil marriage - or civil unions, as I would prefer to call them - is simply a legal entity that is made available to couples wishing to declare their commitment to live together and join their lives and the rights and responsibilities we make available to those couples both for their benefit and for legal convenience.
BTW, I flat out do not intend to argue about what the "real" definition of marriage is, with anyone. There are theological and philosophical discussions in which I might be willing to expand on these thoughts, but it is simply not part of this discussion for me.
I can respect that. Marriage is a religious ceremony in my eyes as well, and civil unions merely their legal counterpart.
But then, what do you feel is being redefined? Muslims certainly don't honor the Trinity when they get married -- do you feel Muslim marriages are significantly redefining marriage? Are you concerned that the federal government will force the Catholic church to marry homosexuals and violate dogma?
If not, I don't quite see what you feel is being redefined.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Lalo, you keep putting more incorrect words into my mouth. It appears as though you are doing it deliberately.
quote:But Porter, that's argument from innuendo. You have to state your case not just hint that something nefarious is over the horizon if we go that way.
If I were trying to argue my case, possibly. But in this thread, I haven't tried in the slightest to get anybody who doesn't already agree with me to change their mind. I don't have to do that.
And in a situation where I have no doubt that I would get dog-piled, such as this disussion, I don't feel inclined to honor requests to do so.
It is because this is being treated as an argument/dabate that I'm not going to elaborate. If it were a respectful discussion, possibly. But it hasn't been*.
*not all of this discussion has taken place in this thread
What?
MPH, I don't think anyone's been rude to you. And if I've put words in your mouth, I apologize -- but could you point out which words, exactly, those were?
And if you'd like to compile a list of the consequences you fear if homosexuals were permitted to marry one another, I'd be grateful. I promise a respectful discussion (as I feel we've had) and an open mind to your ideas.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Pixie -- you gave two contrasting definitions of marriage: "as an economic tool for the raising of children" and "A Man and Woman who love eachother".
You seem to think that the first definition is outmoded and obsolete.
While I don't have a precise definition of what a marriage is and what it should be, I can say that the first definition is an important part of what marriage is to me. It might even be more important than the second definition. I'm not sure.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But I think you'll find that after you lay all that out, and even get people to agree with you point by point that they'll end with "But I don't think we should redefine marriage just for that"
If what you say is true, then clearly arguing about the definition of marriage isn't going to change their minds. So you're no worse off trying this.
I've changed two people's minds on this using this technique (or, more accurately, started the thinking process that ended up with a changed position). How many minds have been changed by some of the other tactics seen in this thread?
Here's the key aspect: breaking apart what happens because a marriage license is filed and what happens because two people say "I do" to each other. (If anyone remembers my post about referents and precision in thought v. precision in wording, here's where it pays off. ) The former is civil marriage or civil union. Only three states have this for same sex couples. This entity should be available to those whose
The latter concept is Marriage. I contend that the state has no business in defining it. The state shouldn't be putting people in jail for having more than one wife when all agree to the arrangement (although age of consent and domestic abuse laws should still be enforced). It shouldn't be putting people in jail for having a same-sex partner.
What it should do is make civil marriage available to couples when it a) provides societal benefit or b) can be provided at cheaply or at no cost when that societal benefit would not result.
quote:But then, what do you feel is being redefined? Muslims certainly don't honor the Trinity when they get married -- do you feel Muslim marriages are significantly redefining marriage? Are you concerned that the federal government will force the Catholic church to marry homosexuals and violate dogma?
If not, I don't quite see what you feel is being redefined.
This question is simply answered by pointing out that most people do not make the distinction between civil marriage and Marriage that I outlined above. For the majority of Americans, civil marriage is Marriage, even when that is somewhat self-contradictory.
Make this distinction clear, and some will change their minds. Or, you'll find that you've moved beyond arguing about definitions and into the real objections. Many people fear that providing legal benefit to same sex couples will encourage same sex coupling. When it's clear that this is the worry, then the discussion can focus on that aspect.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Pixie -- you gave two contrasting definitions of marriage: "as an economic tool for the raising of children" and "A Man and Woman who love eachother".
You seem to think that the first definition is outmoded and obsolete.
While I don't have a precise definition of what a marriage is and what it should be, I can say that the first definition is an important part of what marriage is to me. It might even be more important than the second definition. I'm not sure.
I don't quite understand. Do you think these economic tools can be used only by heterosexuals? What would prevent homosexual parents from raising a family as successfully as heterosexual parents?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: Only one, but he's a politician. A Republican politician. (and I don't live in his district so I can't vote for him. grr!)
MPH: Those definitions are examples of definitions I have heard in the past. And we lost the children argument when it became possible for women to work and have kids without a man around. When no fault divorce caused men to abandon their wives (or vice versa) with ease.
Further, if marriage is simply for the children, my hubby and I better get to boiking before we get annulled. We have no kids.
And as Lalo said, Homosexuals can adopt, use sperm donors or surrogates, or have children from a previous, heterosexual encounter. If marriage behooves both parents and children in a heterosexual arrangement, they bohoove both parents and children in a homosexual arrangement as well.
Pix
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For instance: will gay men still be attracted to men who have grown up in a world where gayness is accepted? I can't provide an argument for why they would.
*blink* I'm curious why you discard the most obvious argument: that they are physically attracted to other men.
Most people are capable of being physically attracted to total strangers -- even people they just see in pictures -- forbidden or not. I assume this holds true for you as well, and that you were attracted to your husband before you got to know him.
If homosexuality were to become commonly accepted, I see no reason to assume that homosexual men would suddenly stop finding other men attractive. (Nor do I particularly believe that heterosexual men would suddenly be much more likely to find other men sexually attractive.) But if I DID feel that social acceptance would cause gay men to lose interest in sex, and if I -- like you -- felt that homosexual behavior was inherently sinful, it would seem logical to me that the best thing for society would be to advocate the acceptance of homosexuality, post-haste.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Do you even need to ask that, Bob? I haven't hidden the fact that I am against SSM.
That's a given. I read your prior post as meaning that you doubted that a man could love a man, or a woman could love a woman.
You said "that is the central question..." as if there is doubt in your mind that that love can or does exist.
That's what I was asking about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bob, I think he was answering this portion of the previous post:
quote:If so, should not we celebrate, consecrate, and sanctify that love?
The central question is what should be done if it does exist, not if it exists.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Dag is correct.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:What it would do, is give monagamous, loving homosexual couples legal rights. Rights that include: rights of inheritance and spousal priviledges. The right to sit at your loved one's bedside as they lay sick or dying in a hospital with family only rules and the right to make determinations about that persons healthcare if they are unable to make decisions for themselves, rather than giving that right to family members that may not have seen or spoken to them since they came out.
It should be noted that nothing in the law prevents a homosexual partner from receiving an inheritance or being appointed as a medical decision maker. Do people think that single people have no say in these matters?
Of the legal constructs you mentioned, only spousal privilege is barred to same sex couples. The difference is in the mechanisms needed to avail oneself of those legal constructs.
I will plead once again for those who support change in the law to make arguments founded in reality. Clearly erroneous statements (such as the one saying same-sex couples lack the right to inheritance or to appoint a medical guardian of their choice) and restructuring opposing arguments so they are easy to refute simply provide an easy way for opponents to refute your arguments.
Perhaps, I should have been more clear about the (or at least my) definition of right of inheritance. Right of inheritance as I was using the phrase is that, if I die and I have no will, who my property is going to. As a single woman with no children, my property would legally revert to my parents or a sibling if my parents predeceased me. If I had children but was single, the money and property would belong to my children. If I were legally married to someone all that property would automatically revert to my husband. Gay and lesbian couples don't automatically have that protection. They could live together for 10 years but if there is no will then property would automatically revert to the closest blood relative.
Similarly, gay and lesbian couples have no automatic medical proxies, such as are afforded to legally married couples. While this can be achieved legally, it is expensive and contestable (sp?) by blood relatives if they so choose.
Frankly, the only real reason to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals is because you believe them to be inferior to you in some way (IMO) and I don't.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Disclaimer:
The above post was in no way meant to bring about a discussion on the irresponsibility of not preparing a will.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Frankly, the only real reason to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals is because you believe them to be inferior to you in some way (IMO) and I don't.
As long as you believe this you will be incapable of changing the minds of those who don't want to change the marriage laws yet don't think homosexuals to be inferior.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Frankly, the only real reason to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals is because you believe them to be inferior to you in some way (IMO) and I don't.
As long as you believe this you will be incapable of changing the minds of those who don't want to change the marriage laws yet don't think homosexuals to be inferior.
Actually, the only reason to deny civil rights to ANY group of individuals who are different than another group is because they are believed to be inferior in some way. Telling someone that they can be afforded certain legal rights because they have sex with someone of the opposite sex but can't be afforded those same rights in the same manner because they sleep with someone of the same sex is pronouncing one group to be superior to the other. There's no way to change that. It may not actually be the intention of the people making the statement, but that is what is being said. Racial segregation was the same way.
Seperate but equal doesn't exist.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:MPH, I don't think anyone's been rude to you.
I have been called an unthinking, rationalizing bigot. Not within the confines of this thread, but in response to it.
quote:And if I've put words in your mouth, I apologize -- but could you point out which words, exactly, those were?
It appears as though I probably misjudged your motives. I apologize. Don't worry about the exact words.
quote:And if you'd like to compile a list of the consequences you fear if homosexuals were permitted to marry one another, I'd be grateful.
I won't compile a list, but I'll share some of my opinions to give you an idea where I'm coming from.
I believe that the family is the central and most important unit of society. I believe that children have the best chance of happiness if they are raised in a stable family with a mother and father.
Instead of being viewed as the bedrock of society, this "traditional family" is increasingly being viewed as merely one in an array of equal choices. I think this is not only mistaken, but dangerous as well.
Two things that Pixie mentioned, no-fault divorce and women's lib, have had a negative effect on this perception of the family. The sexual revolution, safe and effective birth control, and invitro fertilization are also good things, most of them good, which have had this same negative effect.
I believe that legalizing same-sex marriage will have a similar effect.
As I said before, I believe that most people could choose to be either straight or gay. I believe I could. I think that as more people view homosexual relationships as having the same value as heterosexual relationships, more people will come to self-identify as gay.
quote:Frankly, the only real reason to deny equal civil rights to homosexuals is because you believe them to be inferior to you in some way
While I do believe that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships in some ways, I do NOT believe that homosexuals are inferior. There is a world of difference.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Since I believe in evolution, I can not believe people would go with homosxuality exclusively. Procreation is the only reason for existence evolutionarily so we'll still want to make babies.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote:While I do believe that homosexual relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships in some ways, I do NOT believe that homosexuals are inferior. There is a world of difference.
What is this, love the sinner, hate the sin? That really doesn't work out too well.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, the only reason to deny civil rights to ANY group of individuals who are different than another group is because they are believed to be inferior in some way. Telling someone that they can be afforded certain legal rights because they have sex with someone of the opposite sex but can't be afforded those same rights in the same manner because they sleep with someone of the same sex is pronouncing one group to be superior to the other.
Only people under 18 get free education. Are children superior to adults?
Only poor people get welfare (theoretically). Are poor people superior?
Government distinguishes between groups that are different all the time. The key is whether the difference is relevant to the governmental purpose.
The primary reason government recognizes marriage is because it was the primary mode of childbearing and childrearing. Excluding a couple that can not ever produce a child from that institution is distinctly related to that purpose.
(And yes, I know sterile heterosexuals are allowed to marry. That's irrelevant to this argument. Over- and under-inclusiveness caused by bright-line rules is very common. Just ask the 16-year old who's been ready to drive for a year, and think about that 19-year old who's still too immature to drive.)
This isn't denial of civil rights. This is a denial of a particular government benefit that a legislature could, if it so desired, end tomorrow.
quote:There's no way to change that. It may not actually be the intention of the people making the statement, but that is what is being said.
Your narrow view of others and your inability to view this issue from the perspective of others is a little scary.
quote:What is this, love the sinner, hate the sin? That really doesn't work out too well.
Why?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, all those who decided that the now-infamous Irregardless anti-abortion post was too insensitive can jump in any time on this.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:And if you'd like to compile a list of the consequences you fear if homosexuals were permitted to marry one another, I'd be grateful.
I won't compile a list, but I'll share some of my opinions to give you an idea where I'm coming from.
...
Instead of being viewed as the bedrock of society, this "traditional family" is increasingly being viewed as merely one in an array of equal choices. I think this is not only mistaken, but dangerous as well.
See, this is where I can never follow the opposition's point of view. I've never heard anyone give a single convincing impact on society of allowing gay marriage. Saying something is dangerous, on its own, isn't an impact.
Driving drunk is dangerous because you could plow into a bus full of schoolchildren and leave them dead in the middle of road. Base jumping is dangerous because your parachute might not deploy and you could end up a finely mashed paste on the rocks below.
Redefining the nature of the family to include same-sex couples is dangerous because _____________. If someone could convincingly fill in that blank with something concrete, it would help me wrap my mind around the argument. But when I hear some vague, nebulous conjecture about how my family, and the rest of society, are sure to suffer if Billy has two daddies, it just confuses me.
I'm not sure I'd be convinced if someone could answer this question for me. But I'm sure I'd at least respect the position more if I understood what exactly people on the opposite side are saying.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: What is this, love the sinner, hate the sin? That really doesn't work out too well.
-pH
Well, if you are Christian, everyone is a sinner (except Christ). So, Christian's either need to reject the idea of sin or learn to love the sinner or else we'd just be hatefilled lonely people.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks Dag, thanks mph. I misunderstood.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The primary reason government recognizes marriage is because it was the primary mode of childbearing and childrearing.
I hear this advanced all the time, but I'm not sure I believe it. I think our government recognizes marriage because, well, the tradition got grandfathered in along with a lot of property rights.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:MPH, I don't think anyone's been rude to you.
I have been called an unthinking, rationalizing bigot. Not within the confines of this thread, but in response to it.
quote:And if I've put words in your mouth, I apologize -- but could you point out which words, exactly, those were?
It appears as though I probably misjudged your motives. I apologize. Don't worry about the exact words.
quote:And if you'd like to compile a list of the consequences you fear if homosexuals were permitted to marry one another, I'd be grateful.
I won't compile a list, but I'll share some of my opinions to give you an idea where I'm coming from.
I believe that the family is the central and most important unit of society. I believe that children have the best chance of happiness if they are raised in a stable family with a mother and father.
Instead of being viewed as the bedrock of society, this "traditional family" is increasingly being viewed as merely one in an array of equal choices. I think this is not only mistaken, but dangerous as well.
Two things that Pixie mentioned, no-fault divorce and women's lib, have had a negative effect on this perception of the family. The sexual revolution, safe and effective birth control, and invitro fertilization are also good things, most of them good, which have had this same negative effect.
I believe that legalizing same-sex marriage will have a similar effect.
As I said before, I believe that most people could choose to be either straight or gay. I believe I could. I think that as more people view homosexual relationships as having the same value as heterosexual relationships, more people will come to self-identify as gay.
I believe two competent, loving parents are best for children. I don't particularly care what size, shape, or function their genetalia serves -- in fact, if one's genetalia in any way enters a parent's relationship with a child, I think that parent needs to serve a prison term.
Where I think you might be making a logical fallacy is in your belief that only heterosexual parents can be competent ones. Nobody disputes that two good parents are necessary to raise children -- but you seem to invent a condition with no apparent backing, that one parent have male genetalia and one female. Where did this requirement come from?
I've known too many parents to believe heterosexual orientation determines anything of their quality -- and if anything, I submit homosexual parents may, on average, be superior to heterosexual parents. There are no accidental children among homosexual couples, and no burdens. If they have children, it's because they fought tooth and nail against the law to adopt or raise a family -- and any parents with that kind of a devotion to a family, before their children are even born or adopted, are outstanding examples of what parents should be.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Where I think you might be making a logical fallacy is in your belief that only heterosexual parents can be competent ones.
Yet again, you are putting words into my mouth. I have never said that.
But that doesn't really matter, as you obviously disagree with what I do believe. That's no surprise.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: By the way, all those who decided that the now-infamous Irregardless anti-abortion post was too insensitive can jump in any time on this.
Just as a side question, which post was this? I searched and found only two relevant threads, this one and this one. I scanned them quickly, but didn't see anything horribly inflammatory -- which post are you talking about?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But when I hear some vague, nebulous conjecture about how my family, and the rest of society, are sure to suffer if Billy has two daddies
Is this systematic mis-stating of the anti-SSM position being done on purpose or is it just habit by now?
This exact same mis-statment has been done several times already in this thread.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, I think an argument could be made that the biggest threats marriage has faced in this country were/are slavery, adultery, and divorce.
Among those slaves treated as breeding stock, purposeful breakup of families was not uncommon. It could be argued that institutionalized slavery established a pattern of broken homes, and generalized acceptance of that concept (not just among victims of slavery either, since, as we all know, it wasn't all that uncommon for slave owners to breed with their "stock")
That brings us to adultery -- the sin which even the strictest Christian sects acknowledge as a legitimate reason for divorce. It is a common practice (and no, I don't have data). But suffice it to say that adultery is more prevalent than homosexuality, more visible, and more damaging to marriage both directly and by example to young people (and older people)...
Which, of course, brings us to divorce. As a divorced person, I have an appreciation for the laws that allow this action. As a happily remarried person, I have much to be thankful for.
But, ultimately, is there much doubt that in a society where people talk about entering into a "practice marriage" we've gotten a little too accepting of this particular challenge to marriage.
I just get a chuckle about the idea that banning homosexual marriage is a "defense" of marriage. If it is, it's a weird one that goes after something nebulous and ill defined, with not a lot of data to back up the concerns, and not a lot of data to refute the concerns either -- um...just not a lot of data.
On the other hand, we have obvious links between adultery, divorce and damage to the institution of marriage. We have, as a society, accepted a definition of marriage that includes a lot of temporariness and escape clauses. And, for a time, we even institutionally encouraged the break up of marriages in 1/2 of this country in order to get better slaves.
Hey, sure, let's defend marriage!
Let's change our behavior.
Let's stop adultery.
Let's make it less "normal" to divorce.
Then, if marriage is still suffering from societal ills, we could maybe do a few studies and see what else is wrong with the way we live and relate to each other...
Or am I just not getting the concept...again?
Bob <---- out of step with his countrymen for 47 years, and counting.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh yeah...I forgot poverty/money troubles -- the most-often cited reason for the breakup of marriages, IIRC.
Maybe we could do something to better address poverty as a way to defend marriage.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Hey, sure, let's defend marriage!
Let's change our behavior.
Let's stop adultery.
Let's make it less "normal" to divorce.
I agree.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I may be wrong but I remember reading about it in a book from Joe Haldeman, in a far future were everyone is gay or lesbian and a poor guy who belongs to our time but was in the future because of the relativity involved in space travels was straight and considered as very, very weird.
The novel is Forever War, and his troops call him "the old pervert" behind his back. One of his subordinates had repressed heterosexual tendencies and tried to put the moves on him while she was drunk. Because he knew how embarassed and mortified she'd be the next day, he didn't do anything with her.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the sin which even the strictest Christian sects acknowledge as a legitimate reason for divorce.
Catholicism doesn't, although it can recognize a lack of intent to live faithfully at the time of marriage as grounds for annulment, adultery in and of itself is not grounds for a divorce or annulment.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If I recall correctly, in The Forever War people were made gay by some sort of treatment as a population control method.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Dag, I didn't know that.
(of course, I was thinking of sects more strict than Catholicism when I wrote that post...)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
There was no treatment mentioned in the book. A couple of relevant quotes:
quote:"Most governments encourage homosexuality-the United Nations is neutral, leaves it up to the individual countries-they encourage homolife mainly because it's the one sure method of birth control."
quote:He said that the relations between people who chose homolife and the ones he called "breeders" were quite smooth, but I wondered. I never had much trouble accepting homosexuals myself, but then I'd never had to cope with such an abundance of them.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
That makes the way he ties up that particular arc even more face-palmingly stupid.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Where I think you might be making a logical fallacy is in your belief that only heterosexual parents can be competent ones.
Yet again, you are putting words into my mouth. I have never said that.
But that doesn't really matter, as you obviously disagree with what I do believe. That's no surprise.
My mistake, you don't believe homosexuals can't be competent parents -- only that heterosexuals have a better chance at it. Is this better phrasing?
Yet in either case, you're still imposing a proofless condition. What possible significance does a parent's genetalia have in a relationship between parents and their children? And what reasoning do you have to believe heterosexual parents are superior to homosexual parents?
Please don't mistake this for an attack -- it's not. These are questions I've long wanted answered, and to date I have yet to see any argument against homosexual parenthood stand up to examination. I think you may be making a similar set of mistakes to those I've seen so many times before -- namely, holding faithful to beliefs you've cherished all your life, and mistaking questions about their validity for an assault on your religion.
I respect the LDS Church as much as any other, but I think they've mistaken a longtime prejudice for a religious tenet -- a mistake repeated by most religions in the world. But if called upon to defend the concept of heterosexual superiority, I think you'll find yourself grasping for defenses that aren't there; and will recognize questions that take advantage of those absences as attacks on your religion and identity.
So I'll ask for reasons why heterosexual parents might be superior to homosexual parents. If you can't provide that, it doesn't mean that your culture's wrong or in danger -- only that one particular belief might be based more on traditional prejudice than reality. I beg you, reconsider your beliefs; and if you choose to maintain what amounts to heterosexual supremacy, by all means, do. Just please don't feel threatened and defensive every time someone questions those beliefs, because I promise you, for the rest of your life, they will. Your children will, and if they don't believe differently, their children will. In a free society, homosexual equality is as inevitable as that of every other minority -- racial or religious, it doesn't matter, any idea taken for granted will go through the crucible of examination. I can't think of many that have withstood the process.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
m_p_h: ridiculous geek that I am, I know that at one point the society is discussed heterosexuality is illegal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My mistake, you don't believe homosexuals can't be competent parents -- only that heterosexuals have a better chance at it. Is this better phrasing?
It's better, but still not quite right.
quote:Yet in either case, you're still imposing a proofless condition.
I know that. I offer no proof because I have none that would hold any weight with you. My reasoning for that condition begins we "Take as a given that Jesus was the Christ, and that Joseph Smith was and Gordon B. Hinkley is his prophet."
quote:What possible significance does a parent's genetalia have in a relationship between parents and their children?
You are assuming that I believe that gender is merely a matter of plumbing. I do not.
[ June 02, 2006, 11:06 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Edit: So I type too slow. *grin* My bad, this post was an irrelevant and pretty dumb misreading of both Eddie and Porter that probably only made sense to me. Nothing to see here, folks, move along.
Personally, I'm hugely ambivalent about the issue, and very wary to throw my lot in with one side or the other. (I might even be the "ambivalent sometime-Agnostic" Twinky mentioned earlier. *grin*) But I'm really appreciating the discussion here. So keep it up, y'all.
[ June 03, 2006, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
*sigh* sometimes I just wanna go sign up with Magneto and KoM...
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I totally did not know KoM was a mutant.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Isn't it obvious?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
It probably should have been.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:My mistake, you don't believe homosexuals can't be competent parents -- only that heterosexuals have a better chance at it. Is this better phrasing?
It's better, but still not quite right.
quote:Yet in either case, you're still imposing a proofless condition.
I know that. I offer no proof because I have none that would hold any weight with you. My reasoning for that condition begins we "Take as a given that Jesus was the Christ, and that Joseph Smith was and Gordon B. Hinkley is his prophet."
If you have no reason but religious dogma, shouldn't only Mormons be subject to Mormon morality? I think you'd object to, say, Muslims demanding that you pray five times a day, even if they had a large enough population to force it into law -- why would it be any different with a different minority in religious headlights?
By no means am I demanding you enter in a homosexual marriage. Only that you maintain the separation of church and state, precisely so everyone -- including, of all groups to forget this lesson, the LDS Church -- is free of religious persecution and control.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:What possible significance does a parent's genetalia have in a relationship between parents and their children?
You are assuming that I believe that gender is merely a matter of plumbing. I do not.
If you're referring to the importance of gender stereotypes, that's vastly different from actual sex. Many heterosexual couples have feminine men and masculine women -- and many homosexual couples have a dominant partner. I think you'd find that most homosexual couples would provide both stern rules and loving care, just as the they traditional stereotypes would predict from heterosexual couples.
What traits do you believe sex provides that personality doesn't? Do you believe men can't be as loving as mothers, or women as stern as fathers? I think you might be relying on rigid stereotypes, long outdated -- and never true.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Well, whether or not it makes a difference in effective parenting or not, gender *is* more than a matter of plumbing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lalo, on both of those points, let me say that you don't understand my position.
But, this has been too wearying for me. I don't want to debate you, and I am tired of being asked to defend what I think. I just don't have the stamina to keep this up.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Princess Leah: Well, whether or not it makes a difference in effective parenting or not, gender *is* more than a matter of plumbing.
Obviously, but to the point where it hinders parenthood? What aspects of gender affect a person's competence to either discipline or nourish?
These aren't assertions I'm making, to be clear. Claiming that homosexuals would be incompetent (or at least inferior) parents, with no shred of reasoning or evidence behind the claim, seems to be a common card played when arguing against homosexuals' right to marriage. I'd like to understand the logic behind the criticism; but I have yet to see anyone stand behind it upon examination.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Lalo, I already said that I know that I have no scientific evidence for the beginning assumptions of my position. I believe it anyway, and am not going to act as though it's not true. I stand behind it.
If you really want to know more where I'm coming from, this might help.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But when I hear some vague, nebulous conjecture about how my family, and the rest of society, are sure to suffer if Billy has two daddies
Is this systematic mis-stating of the anti-SSM position being done on purpose or is it just habit by now?
This exact same mis-statment has been done several times already in this thread.
If that's a mis-statement, please, please, for the love of God, correct me. I hear a lot of "you don't understand," and precious little "this is what I mean."
The MPH post I quoted last time started out very promisingly. I thought he was going to lay out some specific, concrete reasons that he thinks same-sex marriage (SSM) will be detrimental to society. I read the post with bated breath. But all I got were the same vague allusions to hidden secret dangers.
If someone would explain exactly what they feared would happen, I think a lot of people would listen. I would be one. But all I ever hear is that if we allow SSM, we'll lose the man/woman model of marriage. That's not a consequence. That's just re-stating the definition of SSM.
Every other thing we debate on this forum has a discussion of impacts. If you're pro-war, you can talk about how delaying war will make us look weak and allow the terrorists to prepare to take us on, resulting in more attacks. If you're anti-war, you talk about how our aggression will enrage the terrorists, giving them reason to hate us, resulting in more attacks. If you're for stricter environmental laws, you can talk about global warming and the melting of the icecaps and the storms and the ocean level rising. If you're anti-welfare, you can talk about breeding a class of sponges that will be content to leech off the working class and suck the economy dry. Even when discussing these positions with people with whom I disagree, I can understand and empathize with their point of view.
All I ask of the anti-SSM people is to put together some kind of logically consistent impact statement so that I can at least figure out what in the heck they're all so scared of. I've tried and tried to understand their point of view, and it continues to elude me. And every time I look for some kind of guidance, I get another one of these snarky remarks, like they've explained it hundreds of times and I'm not getting it on purpose.
Once again, I implore you, fill in the blanks. "Two men getting married is dangerous to society because it will lead to _______________." Feel free to use all the scare tactics you want on this one. Tell me something that will keep me up at night. And make it clear enough that I will never have to "mis-state" your position again.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
quote:The ongoing inequality of women is the main reason I feel this amendment is necesary. Hide behind your style manual if you like.
Uhm... huh? I am unversed with your history of argument on this topic... can you make that NOT sound like a parodic non sequitur?
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
Palliard, some of the posts in this thread have links to others where pooka explains her opinions further.
quote:quote: Originally posted by Princess Leah: Well, whether or not it makes a difference in effective parenting or not, gender *is* more than a matter of plumbing.
Obviously, but to the point where it hinders parenthood? What aspects of gender affect a person's competence to either discipline or nourish?
No, not at all. I don't think that there is an inherently ideal parental combination, either man+woman or man+man or woman+woman or woman or man or aunt+grandma+first cousin twice removed. Whatever.
I just thought that as long as this thread is a discussion of GLBTQ rights, letting by an implication that "gender= no more complicated than organs" would be a little hypocritical.
edit because I fail at brackets.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Lalo, I already said that I know that I have no scientific evidence for the beginning assumptions of my position. I believe it anyway, and am not going to act as though it's not true. I stand behind it.
If you really want to know more where I'm coming from, this might help.
I read the article, but isn't that something we already went over? I understand it's a part of LDS dogma that homosexuality is forbidden, but I thought I addressed it with this:
quote:If you have no reason but religious dogma, shouldn't only Mormons be subject to Mormon morality? I think you'd object to, say, Muslims demanding that you pray five times a day, even if they had a large enough population to force it into law -- why would it be any different with a different minority in religious headlights?
By no means am I demanding you enter in a homosexual marriage. Only that you maintain the separation of church and state, precisely so everyone -- including, of all groups to forget this lesson, the LDS Church -- is free of religious persecution and control.
I understand that it's your religion, and I respect that you feel God doesn't want you to be homosexual. I also respect that Muslims believe Allah wants them to pray five times a day, and that Catholics believe God desires Communion with us. But by no means would I support any of the above legislating any of their beliefs on any of the others -- and you're Mormon, MPH. If anyone in this country should understand the importance of religious tolerance, it's you.
By all means, live your life as you feel God wants you to live it. I even support any proselytization you'd like to do against homosexuality -- if you'd like to convince anyone through persuasion to oppose homosexuality, bully for you. My problem comes in when you try to force your religion on others -- laws based on God-said-so are numerous and contradictory, and have no place in the US government. Unless you have some kind of logical reason that homosexuality must be contained -- and I haven't seen any, from anyone -- you really don't have any right to deny a minority their rights, even if you feel God doesn't like their behavior. The same happened to Joseph Smith, didn't it?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gordon B. Hinckley: Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
Sounds sensible. I wonder how much leeway he'd give to interpreting the phrase "other circumstances."
quote:Originally posted by Gordon B. Hinckley: Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
I guess even President Hinckley is having a bit of trouble coming up with a list of specific consequences of same-sex marriage. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If anyone in this country should understand the importance of religious tolerance, it's you.
Religions tolerance means allowing people to worship God according to their own conscience. I do understand how important it is. I support it, and am not violating it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If anyone in this country should understand the importance of religious tolerance, it's you.
Religions tolerance means allowing people to worship God according to their own conscience. I do understand how important it is. I support it, and am not violating it.
That's half of the definition. It also means you will not force your religion on another -- nor them on you.
To follow Rob's lead, let's say "private citizen Ken Keating Kain decides he doesn't like that inter-racial marriages are recognized" -- he feels it's against God's will to grant them legal recognition. Since there's no scientific evidence that interracial relationships are somehow harmful beyond threats of a nebulous danger to society, does Kain have any right to restrict the rights of minorities to marry whom they will? Even if he has the majority on his side?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I need to interject for a second to point out that "rights" are artificial social constructs. Relying too much on the assumption of a universal "right" to marry ignores the fact that SSM opponents deny the existence of such a right, and are in fact seeking to modify the Constitution to make that denial explicit.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have figured out why this exchange has been bothering me so much.
Reluctantly, I took the time and effort to try to partiall explain where I was coming from. I was led to believe that I would be listened to with "an open mind". From the reactions I have received, it doesn't appear as though most recent participants were interested in trying to understand where I am coming from at all. They appear to be only interested in getting me to answer questions so that they can argue/debate my answers, not so that they can understand me.
I already said that I'm not trying to convince anybody. I already said I didn't want to argue, and I didn't want to debate. I feel like I was drawn further into one under false pretenses.
Because of this exchange, I am less likely to share my feelings and views, especially as they touch on sensitive subjects, than I was 24 hours ago.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Porter, you've been saying that you were too tired to engage in this conversation since you entered this conversation.
Seriously, though, the problem as I see it is that some of the people talking to you here simply don't get the premises on which your conclusions are based; they hear and understand the words you're giving them, but the foundation of those words -- the assumptions on which those words rely -- is absent for them. So it's like you've said "chocolate cake is bad because it encourages right-handed slicing." They don't understand why you think someone's slicing preference might depend on the type of cake, or even why a particular slicing preference might matter to the extent that one might consider refusing to call chocolate cake "cake" at all, to discourage people from ordering it.
And since that's precisely the stuff you don't want to explain, you're tiring yourself explaining the steps they DO understand and beating your head against the wall when they leap to false conclusions based upon the stuff they don't. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom he doesn't have to explain himself. let him be.
I can't disagree with him more, but getting dogpiled really sucks.
Porter, I know it's hard to walk away from a thread that upsets you, but maybe you should. And maybe I should follow my own advice (but I know I won't.)
Pix
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And since that's precisely the stuff you don't want to explain, you're tiring yourself explaining the steps they DO understand and beating your head against the wall when they leap to false conclusions based upon the stuff they don't.
Were those people willing to accept MPH at his word, they could part ways realizing there is something they don't understand about his way of thinking - useful knowledge to be sure.
However, the repeated restatements of what he's saying after being explicitly told that those restatements are wrong is incredibly tiring.
MPH hasn't explained his beliefs to their satisfaction. OK. That doesn't mean he needs to be continually hounded about it and things he has explicitly denied thrown back at him. He was willing to share a certain portion of his beliefs here. Instead of simply saying, "OK, I don't understand this part of your reasoning," he has been told he thinks homosexuals are inferior, that he thinks gay marriage will cause him to get a divorce, and a raft of other nonsense.
It's one thing to restate something to see if you understood it and be wrong in that restatement. It's another thing entirely to persist despite a clear, non-ambiguous declaration that the restatement is wrong, even if that declaration is not accompanied by additional explanation.
Porter has certainly earned an expectation of good faith. If he says, "no, I don't mean X, but I'm not comfortable explaining further" then people should accept that at face value.
I know there are topics I flat out won't touch here, simply because I doubt my ability to explain accurately and I consider the topic so important that a misinterpretation would be worse than silence. Those doubts are especially high when I have reason to believe that, if interpreted wrongly, people will not be gracious enough to simply acknowledge I haven't explained. If I suspect people will continue to fill in the unexplained gaps with interpretations I have told them are inaccurate, I probably won't bother.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
This is (now) off-topic somewhat, but I wanted to answer pooka's question from a couple of pages ago:
quote:But you stopped believing (in Mormonism). Unless you never believed it. If one cannot change such beliefs, what is the point of trying to educate away prejudice? I know, I know, people are seeing me as the prejudiced one in this case. But if I can't be taught and you can't be taught, then we just go on with our lives, I guess.
I did stop believing in Mormonism. However, despite touted scriptural promises I never found any compelling reason to continue believing, even after years of sincere petition.
I believe that sexuality is a continuum. I believe the same is true of spiritual belief. On both ends of these continua are people who feel that the pertinent issue (sexuality, core spiritual belief) is immutable, and integral to their core self. I think the vast majority of people can change to some degree, but I also think that it takes a stronger catalyst the closer one is to either extreme, perhaps even something cataclysmic for those on the far ends of the continua.
There was a time in my life that I rejected the idea that I was gay, or even the idea that anyone was gay in the sense that it was a natural sexual orientation. I don't believe that way now, of course. I believe that I am pretty far on the gay side of the spectrum. That said, I probably could make it through the necessary sexual acts to get a woman pregnant, but I don't think that fact alone is sufficient reason to subject a woman (or myself) to the charade that a full-blown hetersexual relationship would be for me. However, I also believe (and have been told by them) that there are people who simply could not function at all in a heterosexual coupling.
In terms of spirituality, I never reached a point as an adult where I felt that my spiritual beliefs were central to who I was. From many discussions on this forum, however, I think there are many people for whom their spiritual beliefs (or at least the core of them) are central to who they are. (Any of them can correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps my terminology isn't the same as they would use, but I suspect I'm close to the mark in what I'm trying to say.)
I'm definitely not saying that I can't be taught and you can't be taught. We both can be taught, if we're willing to learn. But you can learn another point of view and learn to respect it without adopting it. All the understanding of pure heterosexual attraction in the world isn't going to make me straight. All the understanding of the athiest point of view in the world isn't likely to make Dagonee an atheist, from what I've been able to surmise. But we both get along pretty well, I think. I'm not out to change him and he's not out to change me. He respects me, I feel, and I have nothing but respect for him.
Do I think someone's core beliefs can change? Sure. But I think the more strongly they are held, the more cataclysmic the event necessary to cause such a change. And if someone is happy and is willing to allow others their own happiness, I don't see the need to wish such calamity on them.
This is what I mean when I say that I believe some people don't feel they "choose" to believe in God. I think they feel that God simply is and to not believe in him would be like not believing in the sky or the oceans. Or for some, maybe that the evidence of his existence (as they see it) is so overwhelmingly obvious that there's no choice involved. Sure, I can naively and close-mindedly say that they "choose" to interpret their experiences the way they do, but isn't that hubristic to an insane degree?
Does this clarify for you what I was talking about earlier?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Porter has certainly earned an expectation of good faith. If he says, "no, I don't mean X, but I'm not comfortable explaining further" then people should accept that at face value.
And part of that discomfort is probably due to the nature of the inquiry. /my 2 cents.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:For instance: will gay men still be attracted to men who have grown up in a world where gayness is accepted? I can't provide an argument for why they would. Is very much a butterfly effect kind of speculation.
I really wish you would at least try to provide some sort of arguement for this, because at face value it seems like a completely bizarre speculation from my point of view. It seems to belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of sexual and romantic/emotional attraction, in my opinion.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Hi Karl, I'm glad we're finally interacting here. I didn't post this thread to bug you, but did wonder if it would later.
I made a speculation on what might be an essential difference between men and women. If that difference is altered, will the same rules apply? What is it about masculinity that attracts one? My position is that you love a person, not their gender. I have been attracted to many people besides my husband over the years, but I am not compelled to act on it, and I remain attracted to him as well, and he's available to me, so it works out well for me. I do understand, on the face of it, the apparent unfairness that you don't feel like society recognizes your right to make a similar choice. But I don't think the choice is the same.
I don't think it's difficult to love someone similar to oneself. It takes a social institution to provide a union between men and women, just as it took troops to enforce desegregation in the sourth. In my view, protecting marriage and families is the only reason for society to exist.
Which brings us back to the question of what is considered a marriage and a family. We disagree. We believe different things. If such matters are inalterable, then it just gets slugged out by the numbers in legislatures.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Porter has certainly earned an expectation of good faith. If he says, "no, I don't mean X, but I'm not comfortable explaining further" then people should accept that at face value.
I don't think most people have the ABILITY to do this, Dag. It actually requires a mode of thought that takes a certain amount of training -- and has nothing to do with how much someone is or is not respected.
Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take what Porter says at face value. But I'm saying he shouldn't consider it an insult if they don't, or even assume they're not listening to him -- because what he's asking of them is something that I don't think most people are actually mentally equipped to DO, at least not reflexively.
--------
quote: If that difference is altered, will the same rules apply?
Pooka, I don't think I understand why you believe that any of the integral differences between men and women would be universally altered by permitting people to marry other people of the same gender. I just can't get to the roots of such a claim.
Posted by enochville (Member # 8815) on :
It is interesting to me to see how my views on this issue changed from when I was still a Mormon to now when I am not.
The following is one of my posts from November on a Mormon message board about my struggle with reconciling my values and the solution I came to:
quote:"I believe in always subjecting my views in favor the Almighty's direction. Therefore, I completely support the First Presidency's statement when they spoke for the church and said:
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
Now, I would like help finding a way to reconcile this position (now my position) on same sex civil unions with my value system. My highest value is on doing the Lord's will, therefore it trumps all my other values, and I substitute God's judgment in place of my own, for "[his] thoughts are higher than [my] thoughts". He has a greater perspective and things that are usually wrong could be right in other circumstances. However, I would like to find a way for me to be comfortable in denying equal treatment under the law to those who desire legal partner benefits in same sex unions. I believe there is a way and I would like you to help me find it.
When Nephi was told by God to kill Laban, he was able to reconcile this command with his values by understanding that he could save a whole nation by killing this man. Joseph Smith was able to reconcile polygamy with his values. But, even if I cannot reconcile supporting measures that "do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship", I will follow it. And if asked why, I'll say, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me" (Moses 5:6).
We uphold the US Constitution and feel that its creation was inspired, and we support this democracy. Granted, we know that the perfect system of government is a theocracy where the rule of God is supreme. In a theocracy, although everyone is free to choose what they will do, they are subject to the legal consequences that God sets forth because there is no question that God's law is right. In a democracy, no one person's opinion can decide a issue because everyone's opinion is respected equally, we have to compromise and not be overbearing by exerting our will and beliefs on others and we expect to be treated the same. We do not live in a theocracy, we live in a democracy. Although we know we are right on this issue and we do not want society to be corrupted or people to sin, we should not take away another's ability to act according to their conscience as long as they are not hurting anyone else. (Now if we can demostrate hurt, that might be a way for me to reconcile my values).
The following is how I felt about same sex marriages before the First Presidency said that I should not support legal status for same sex relationships.
"I value protecting the opportunity for people to be able to act according to their own conscience without fear of governmental reprisal in most circumstances. I also value an equal treatment under the law in most cases. I cannot justify withholding partner insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, alimony, custody claims, tax breaks, Social Security benefits, etc., from one segment of the population who have an enduring committed relationship and are only kept from making it a legal contract by the laws of the land. Therefore, homosexuals should be given the opportunity to enter into a legal contract where they get the same legal benefits and liabilities that heterosexuals do.
However, I also value the ability of religious societies to be able act according to their conscience without government interference for the most part. Homosexual partner contracts should not be called marriage, because marriage is a religious covenant whose definition comes from God, and no man or government under heaven has the authority to redefine it. They may try and put it in their books, but the real definition hasn't changed, for God recognizes none such. And His commandments based on marriage only apply to those who are married His way. I don't think the government should have ever adopted that the term marriage, but hindsight is 20/20. So, let's correct it now and refer to partner benefits in the law books and let religions alone decide who can marry, but government decide who can enter into these legal partner contracts."
Now, of course, I do not support same sex partner contracts. But, help me to reconcile this if you can. It might help if you knew that I do not believe individuals with same gender attraction are born that way. But, I don't believe it is a choice either for most of them. In my opinion, sexual attraction (straight or gay) is learned, or acquired through one's interaction with one's environment. As an illustration, people can even learn to be sexual attracted to animals or inanimate objects (fetishes). In saying this, I do not want you to think this learning requires study, intent, or even conscious awareness, but can be learned passively.
So, I do not think homosexuals are a class of people like racial minorities, or women, who have been discriminated against for simply being born that way. I believe that people with same gender attraction can learn to be attracted to the opposite sex. But, I think they will always be vulnerable to temptation, even as alcholics are.
I don't like when the majority represses a minority. When congress enacted laws to criminalize polygamy, it was the religious right forcing their beliefs on Mormons. I know that the strength of nations rests on the strength of its families. I think we should continue to promote heterosexual marriages through persuation and example. But, why should we force our views on others through legislation? Perhaps it will speed up the moral decline of the nation and introduce more pain into interpersonal relationships, and speed up the judgments of God because not as many people will get married. I guess we just can't foresee the consequences as God can, and if we love the people and we love the nation we should not support legal recognition of same sex unions. But, this position doesn't appear to be Constitutionally supported.
I think I have found the answer to my question. My value of acting for the greater good of my brothers and sisters outweighs my respect for letting people act according to their own conscience. This is the same reasoning I use when preventing a suicide, or letting a child play in the street. The difference with these examples is it is easy for people of all religious or philosophical backgrounds to see that preventing suicide or playing in the street is acting for the greater good, but it is not so easily seen or agreed upon with preventing same sex unions. Plus, I think the world has a problem with being our brother's keeper. But, the Lord expects us at least to try."
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WAY ANYMORE and I will not defend it. I am embarrassed by some of the things I said there. I shudder at the egotism and arrogance. I want to put distance between those views and who I am now.
I don't believe it is the government's business to interfere with consenting adults who desire to enter into a marriage (same gender and polygamous marriages included).
[ June 03, 2006, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: enochville ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't believe it is the government's business to interfere with consenting adults who desire to enter into a marriage (same gender and polygamous marriages included).
Note that "marriage," as it's meant in this thread, IS government interference. If "marriage" or its equivalent isn't the business of government AT ALL, then we're having the wrong conversation.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Hi Karl, I'm glad we're finally interacting here. I didn't post this thread to bug you, but did wonder if it would later.
I made a speculation on what might be an essential difference between men and women. If that difference is altered, will the same rules apply? What is it about masculinity that attracts one? My position is that you love a person, not their gender. I have been attracted to many people besides my husband over the years, but I am not compelled to act on it, and I remain attracted to him as well, and he's available to me, so it works out well for me. I do understand, on the face of it, the apparent unfairness that you don't feel like society recognizes your right to make a similar choice. But I don't think the choice is the same.
I don't think it's difficult to love someone similar to oneself. It takes a social institution to provide a union between men and women, just as it took troops to enforce desegregation in the sourth. In my view, protecting marriage and families is the only reason for society to exist.
Which brings us back to the question of what is considered a marriage and a family. We disagree. We believe different things. If such matters are inalterable, then it just gets slugged out by the numbers in legislatures.
I think one of the core differences in our opinions is that I don't think there are as many fundamental differences between genders as you (and others) seem to think. Clearly physiology is one of them. All the rest I can think of off the top of my head aren't exclusive, even though they may be present in one gender in a greater proportion than the other.
I believe it's easier to like people similar to oneself but I can't change that "like" to "love" without first defining what you mean by "love". In terms of physical attraction, I don't think it's even remotely true to say that it's easier to love someone similar to you than different (in general). The fact that humans procreate at all should testify to that.
And in reality what we're talking about mostly in this thread is physical attraction. People choose their friends often for very different reasons than they choose their lovers, and sometimes in the case of lovers, those two different criteria clash horribly. Romantic love is difficult regardless of how similar two people are. And very often, two people who are too similar can't stand to be around each other.
I'm willing to accept that we may fundamentally disagree on what constitutes a family or a marriage, and we may indeed have to "slug it out" in the legislatures. However, before it comes to blows, you might want to ask yourself what it is you are trying to prevent. As far as social constructs go, there already are gay families, whether you are willing to allow the term or not. Men can already form long lasting relationships with men, and often can be parents to children, though legally they have almost no protection for their families. If SSM is prevented in the legal arena, it is not going to stop the formation of same-sex de facto families. It is only going to create a growing second class status for same-sex families and cause children to be raised without the legal protections the priviledged class gets. That is, unless you are also going to follow up the prevention of SSM with laws forbidding children to live with gay couples even when they are biologically related to one of them.
But getting back to what it is about masculinity that attracts one. Well, forgive the mental images if they offend you, but what attracts me is a hairy chest, a handsome masculine face, a nice fuzzy butt, and a penis of average or better length and girth. These things are pretty much exclusive to men and aren't likely to change much regardless of how acceptable homosexual relationships become. Other things that attract me in a person are strength, curiosity, a cheerful personality, kindness, and honesty. I might feel physically attracted to someone who has all the first list of qualities, but none of the second, but I wouldn't want to live with them. What fundamental quality of masculinity do you recognize that will diminish or cease to exist if homosexuality is more accepted in society?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
pooka, sorry, been away a while.
I think men and women are different, but even while there are some blatant differences (physiology), that doesn't mean that these overwhelm an individual person's being, in total. I'm more of a holistic type. What everyone glosses over in this argument, and I which I think creates a false dichotomy of "continuum" vs. "absoltism" is that I, personally, feel that many behaviors are _weighted_ continuums. I think sexual preference is a good example. I think that people can slide along this continuum, but that heterosexuality is weighted. I also think that different people can slide differing amounts from where they are. We, as a species, love to rationalize and simplify our environment, but this is a case where I think we've (on both sides) gone a bit too far. ---
I think you have cherished, honorable beliefs that you see under attack, and possibly contradicted, and therefore have created this lattice work of assumptions that are plausible in order to buttress the beliefs. I have only anecdotal evidence, but I see you implications just not happening, and seen contradictory situations.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
As I was thinking about this, I have to wonder if a gay person contemplating the benefits of marriage considers punishment of an unfaithful spouse to be one. It's not one that crosses my mind frequently, but as I was talking about fidelity in my last post it arose.
One way men and women are different tends to be who by default gets custody of minor children in a divorce. Who gets alimony. Why are there these differences? How will they be affected by there only being one gender involved?
That doesn't even get into the likelihood that cloning will be viewed differently once you have people for whom that is the simplest way for them to have chldren of their own "blood." I mean, that may seem like an outlandish fear, but I seem to specialize in that.
The situation of a surrogate child with 3 biological parents and 2 legal parents, who wound up with no parent at birth because her legal parents divorced (I believe I saw this on Nova) I think situations like this will not be as outlandish. They may not happen everyday, but things can get very, very complicated. (P.S. The formerly legal mother wanted the child but was being prevented by the formerly legal father, because if the mother took custody, he would be liable for child support.)
P.P.S. I would conjecture that what a man might lose is the psychological differentiation from the caregiver that a boy would experience being bonded to a woman. Certainly children are deprived of one parent or the other. And there have been some experiments in replacing the absent parent with another of the same gender. As sanctioned polygamy was winding down in Utah, there were often sister-wives who lived together. One worked and the other raised the children. It's hard to know whether the children from these families were maladjusted due to the stigma on polygamy or from the family structure, or just good old genetics. I mean, plenty of people are nuts for no particular reason.
[ June 03, 2006, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:One way men and women are different tends to be who by default gets custody of minor children in a divorce. Who gets alimony. Why are there these differences? How will they be affected by there only being one gender involved?
Gender is no longer a factor in alimony.
In the vast majority of states, if not all, the "tender years" rule which by default assigned children under a certain age to their mother's custody has been replaced with a "primary caregiver" rule.
So, technically, those differences don't exist any more, even though women are far more likely to get alimony and custody. As to how they will be applied in same-sex cases: If gender is being used improperly by judges to determine alimony, then all that will happen in same-sex situations is that judges will lose the ability to improperly use gender to determine alimony. As to custody, there is already a vast body of law in place concerning what happens when a biological parent is married to a person not related by blood to the children. That law would be applied in same sex couples.
quote:That doesn't even get into the likelihood that cloning will be viewed differently once you have people for whom that is the simplest way for them to have chldren of their own "blood." I mean, that may seem like an outlandish fear, but I seem to specialize in that.
The situation of a surrogate child with 3 biological parents and 2 legal parents, who wound up with no parent at birth because her legal parents divorced (I believe I saw this on Nova) I think situations like this will not be as outlandish. They may not happen everyday, but things can get very, very complicated.
As you said, these things happen now, without same sex marriage.
I do fear that redefining legal marriage might cause some people to attempt to, for example, force licensed clergy to marry any couple who asks (not in a church ceremony, but acting in a purely civil role). I think such attempts can be stopped under existing first amendment law. If not, then clergy will simply give back their licenses and people wishing a religious wedding will also have to find a civil celebrant. I'm willing to risk that because I'm perfectly willing to fight that battle if I have to.
As to cloning, this will have to be dealt with whether or not same sex civil marriage is allowed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Re: cloning and surrogacy, I think it's a matter of demand. We are already facing health care rationing. Society will either have to foot the bill (in terms of resources, not so much financial) for gays to be cloned or restrict services that are currently available for some to have fertility treated. Health care has gone from 1/20th of our GNP to 1/6th, and the baby boomers are aging. Each of the individuals involved can afford to pay, but there aren't enough nurses and facilities. That's my practical argument for opposing cloning. It doesn't really charge my "twisted and evil" button.
How do they determine the primary caregiver when both parents work and the child is in daycare? Will this be more likely the case with gay marriage or no?
As far as the separation of religious and civil marriage, they already do that in Brazil and probably other countries. A church ceremony has to be accompanied by a marriage license in Utah at least. What worries me is the idea that a clergy would have to sign an oath of willingness to perform a same sex marriage in order to be licensed by the state. I don't know what kinds of stuff they already have to agree to, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How do they determine the primary caregiver when both parents work and the child is in daycare?
They generally don't, although even in two-worker families it's sometimes clear which parent is the PG. When there's no PG, courts use a more general "best interest of the child" standard.
quote:Will this be more likely the case with gay marriage or no?
Don't know. But it's extremely common in heterosexual divorces now, so I doubt adding same sex couples to the mix could change the ratio by much.
quote:As far as the separation of religious and civil marriage, they already do that in Brazil and probably other countries. A church ceremony has to be accompanied by a marriage license in Utah at least. What worries me is the idea that a clergy would have to sign an oath of willingness to perform a same sex marriage in order to be licensed by the state.
I worry about that, too, but am confident in our ability to fight it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: What worries me is the idea that a clergy would have to sign an oath of willingness to perform a same sex marriage in order to be licensed by the state. I don't know what kinds of stuff they already have to agree to, though.
To sign the certificate and send it in within 15 days after the ceremony.
There is no "right" to a religious ceremony for anyone in this country, it is completely at the discretion of the clergy being asked to officiate. I could decline to do a wedding because I don't think redheads should get married, because I've already got three weddings scheduled for a particular month and don't want to do any more, or because the couple fought so much in pre-marital counseling that I figure they'd be divorced the week after. It is solely my discretion.
Edit to add: If I were to start being obviously capricious about this I could get into trouble with my denomination. But not with the state. A current example -- some churches/clergy won't marry a couple who are living together prior to the wedding. Some will.
[ June 03, 2006, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see how any clergy member could ever be forced by the government to perform a religious ceremony that violated their doctrine.
Well, I see how the law could me made, but it would never survive the courts. It's the flip side of church and state that usually isn't nearly as discussed as the other way around. It's almost entirely the reason that clause was put in the constitution in the first place.
Personally I don't see a problem with same sex couples raising children. There are already so many mainstream alternatives to a one man/one woman parent household that produce perfectly healthy children that I don't think adding one more to the mix will harm anything. I don't see, however, how a gay couple would prefer to clone themselves instead of adopting or having a surrogate child.
The most common argument I hear against gay parents is that it promotes the gay lifestyle to children, thus imposing some sort of gayness on them. I don't really see how it makes them any more likely to be gay, but then I'm in the camp that sees homosexuality as more hardwired than as a conscious choice, but then more and more I think it falls into a gray area. Regardless, I once heard the child of a lesbian couple put it like this: "Where do the majority of gay people come from? Heterosexual parents. So why is it more likely that Homosexual parents will produce homosexual children?" Makes sense to me.
What confuses me is the idea that the 21st century family is somehow an ages old thing. The idea of an equal husband/wife sharing in the raising of their children, and for the matter, the raising of children and how they are treated today, is so vastly different from how it was in the 19th century and back, and even the early on 20th century that I wonder what people are talking about.
Women's lib destroyed the common conceptions of what a family was in the early and middle part of the 20th century, and I think we're better off for it.
I don't think the nation will ever come to an agreement on this issue until there's a basic agreement that civil unions and marriage are two different things. As Dag said, few people make the distinction. Marriage to me is a religious act. I don't think the government has any place legislating that, it's for the church to decide. But civil unions are a bestowing of legal rights, wholly controlled by the government, having nothing to do with religion. And those rights should be equally spread amongst everyone in the nation.
pooka -
How is it biologically possible for a kid to have THREE biological parents?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
In the case pooka was refering to there was the man who provided the sperm, the woman who provided the egg, and the woman whose womb the embryo was inplanted in. The last one was not genetically the child's parent, but she did carry it and give birth, which is a pretty darn biological connection.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
One egg donor, one sperm donor, one woman who carries the fetus to term. (Even if you want to define 'biological parent' as 'contributor of genetic material', the surrogate mother does pass on some.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
In what way?
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
quote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman even though the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate.
I know this isn't really news, but it hadn't been posted here yet. I'm rather angry he's spending time and money attempting to enshrine his own values in the constitution at the expense of a minority.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You know, it really pisses me off when I hear comments like, "Now I really feel like God is in the White House."
...first of all, if I wanted to be picky, I could claim that you're calling Dubya God.
Secondly, why oh why are you trying to destroy one of the principles of this country which many churches claim to value so much? Really. So many religions came here to avoid being persecuted by contries that had state religions and that were generally being not so nice. Like, as someone else mentioned, the Huguenots.
But go on. You go worship your Lord Dubya, and I will laugh at you from Australia if this country turns into something out of A Handmaid's Tale.
/annoyance.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see how any clergy member could ever be forced by the government to perform a religious ceremony that violated their doctrine.
Well, I see how the law could me made, but it would never survive the courts. It's the flip side of church and state that usually isn't nearly as discussed as the other way around. It's almost entirely the reason that clause was put in the constitution in the first place.
They wouldn't be forced. Instead, the law would say something like, "No publicly licensed marriage celebrant may deny services based on ..."
The need for a public license would be the hook. Revocation of the license would be the stick.
Like I said, I think it could be stopped either legally or politically.
quote:You know, it really pisses me off when I hear comments like, "Now I really feel like God is in the White House."
Who said this?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I couldn't remember who it was, but I specifically remember that quote...Google informs me that it was a supporter at some rally or something.
quote:Mr. President, I've been a Republican voter my whole life, but this is the first time I feel that God is in the White House.
-pH
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I have three issues I want to discuss; two are on topic, but one is definitely off on a tangent.
1.) Several statements made by Dagonee have got me thinking about the difference between Civil Union and Marriage. While what I am about to say is not necessarily true by the letter of the law, I think it still stands as a valid concept.
In a sense, all marriages are Civil Unions. What happens in the Church does not make a legal marriage, it is what happens at the court house that counts. All marriages are legally registered Unions. Any ceremony is just that, ceremonial.
One could have a spritual/church marriage without having a legal courthouse marriage, and the opposite, a courthouse marriage without any religious componenet to it. Of course, the law would only recognise the courthouse marriage. So, again, the ceremony itself is purely cerimonial.
We could adopt this concept more ridgely in the name of Same Sex Marriage. What Same Sex couple are looking for is legal protections, rights, and responsibilities. Whether any Church is willing to sanctify this union, and convert it into a marriage is up to the individual churches to resolve. Some will, some won't; so be it.
So, although currently it is merely my personal perspective, we could to some extent preserve the concept of marriage by making it a spiritual and ceremonial process, and reserve the concept of Unions as a purely legal process.
So, if a straight couple are married in a civil ceremony, they are legally married in concept. They have a legal civil union. If they want to be formally 'married' in the spritual sense, they would have to have a Church Wedding.
2.) I don't see any reason to compell any churches or ministers to preform gay weddings. That is purely a matter for the church's greater governing body to decide. I am confident that there would be plenty of churches willing to perform such a ceremony, and see no need to compell, say, the Catholic Church to take part. That would be a matter of the State dictating Church policy, and I don't think that is right nor do I think it would be allowed.
3.) Now to the point that strays very much from the central topic. My brother is absolutely convinced that the Polygamists want Same Sex Marriages legalized. Once that happens the polygamists see that as the opening of the flood gates. If gay people can marry then there is no justifiable reason from a civil rights point of view that a Man shouldn't be able to have multiple wives.
I'm not saying I support this point of view, but if the marraige rights are expanded certainly more extreme groups are going to take that as a precedent to expand rights even farther.
I do see a flaw in this arguement though. Most polygamists are viewing polygamy as a man having many wives, but from a civil rights perspective, if a man can have several wives than there is no reason why a wife can't have several husbands.
That, more than any other thing I can think of, has the power to weaken and compromise both marriage and family. If a husband can have many wives and each of those wives can legally have other husbands who have other wives who also have other husbands who also have other wives who also have other husbands then the whole concept of family and marriage seems to have been lost.
With a family structure so complex how can you determine who has the responsibility for who? Can one husband say that those kids, despite the fact that they are the children of his wife, are not his responsibility, let the other husbands take care of them? What about custody in the event that one parent dies? What about inheritance? What about countless other legal issues?
To some extent, I'm not sure whether people making the arguement that Same Sex Marriage opens the door to Poly-sex marriages is a way of fighting against Gay Marriage, or if they really believe that polygamy is a valid extention of marriage civil rights?
Still, I see polygamy as a far greater threat to marriage and family than Gay Marriage.
This last point is an admitted Tangental. I'm not making any great argument here, just curious if anyone has an opinion on it.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I've noticed a few comments about gender in here and have a comment myself.
Taking into consideration that gender and sex are not the same, same sex marriage applies to two people who have the same sex. Legally, a lesbian or gay couple could get married if one is a transgender identified person who has not gotten their sex changed on their birth certificate. This varies by state of course.
When a father and a mother are mentioned, is this their gender? Their sex? Their role in the child's life? Can the "husband" have the mothering role and the "wife" the fathering?
While stereotypically this isn't the case, who's to say that it doesn't happen. Gender roles aren't the same as they used to be.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman
I just want to know, which man and which woman? I mean, if our Constitution is only going to allow one couple to be married, who's it going to be? Are we going to hold a lottery? Is it one per generation? If that couple breaks up, or one of the two people dies, do we get to draw again, or does someone have to marry the survivor?
Ooooh! Maybe we could hold a big TV talent show and all get to vote on who the couple will be. They don't get a say in it. We pick!
Then they have to tour the country showing us all what marriage is. They visit county fairs and hold hands while sharing food on a stick. They do the talk show circuit to keep us all up to date on how that marriage thing is working out.
It'll be so cool!
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Bok and Karl: If there is no psychological difference between men and women, then you are right and I am wrong.
But I think there is a difference. I have ventured to say what that difference might be. Most people have some idea there is a difference, they just aren't able to phrase it without some kind of offensive value judgement. Even though my statement was not a value judgement, it ruffled all kinds of feathers.
But if there is no difference then there are two possibilities: 1) Homosexual attraction is purely physical. or 2) It might be possible for a gay person to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.
And yeah, I know I take things to extremes. I really don't see the world as all black all white. I just suggest that the exclusively homosexual mindset has its extreme aspects.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:They wouldn't be forced. Instead, the law would say something like, "No publicly licensed marriage celebrant may deny services based on ..."
The need for a public license would be the hook. Revocation of the license would be the stick.
I'm not sure of the exact breakdown, but in many states clergy aren't "publicly licensed" in the first place. By signing the marriage certificate you testify that you fit the qualifications for someone allowed to solemnize marriages, but there's no other form to fill out or registration process ahead of time. (This is not true in all states.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks for the additional info, dkw.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Bok and Karl: If there is no psychological difference between men and women, then you are right and I am wrong.
But I think there is a difference. I have ventured to say what that difference might be. Most people have some idea there is a difference, they just aren't able to phrase it without some kind of offensive value judgement. Even though my statement was not a value judgement, it ruffled all kinds of feathers.
But if there is no difference then there are two possibilities: 1) Homosexual attraction is purely physical. or 2) It might be possible for a gay person to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.
Invalid argument.
One might choose only mates of a particular gender, and still pick between members of that gender on the basis of something other than physical attraction.
Probably that's what most people do.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Hi. Just got back from 11 hours at work, so I'm a little behind.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I have figured out why this exchange has been bothering me so much.
Reluctantly, I took the time and effort to try to partiall explain where I was coming from. I was led to believe that I would be listened to with "an open mind". From the reactions I have received, it doesn't appear as though most recent participants were interested in trying to understand where I am coming from at all. They appear to be only interested in getting me to answer questions so that they can argue/debate my answers, not so that they can understand me.
I already said that I'm not trying to convince anybody. I already said I didn't want to argue, and I didn't want to debate. I feel like I was drawn further into one under false pretenses.
Because of this exchange, I am less likely to share my feelings and views, especially as they touch on sensitive subjects, than I was 24 hours ago.
Let me just say my primary purpose in this thread hasn't been to debate MPH so much as it has been to understand him. Further, let me clarify exactly what I was hoping to wrap my head around.
If MPH is under the impression that I don't understand why he thinks gay marriage is wrong, he misunderstood me. I think I can say that I have a pretty good understanding of why he believes this, and there's nothing about that particular position that I really have any problem with. What really baffles me is the kind of sin he thinks gay marriage is.
I know a lot about Mormons. I've been one for much of my life. One of the things I like so much about this particular faith, and others like it, is that they're usually quite good about respecting non-believers. And when it comes down to their beliefs of right and wrong, there are basically two types of sin.
The first type are obvious things like murder, burglary, rape and so on. God tells us not to murder people, and no one really has a problem with putting these sorts of God's laws into a secular government-enforcement scenario. The reason for this is that it's pretty obvious, whether you're a Mormon or not, that murder takes away the rights of other people and is, by as objective a measure as we're capable of giving, plain wrong.
The other types of sin are things like shopping on Sunday, taking the Lord's name in vain, not paying tithing, and so on. I've never met a Mormon in my life, nor would I ever expect to, who honestly thinks that they should lobby to pass a law forbidding people from shopping on Sunday. If you're a Mormon, you stay home on Sunday with your family and you reap the benefits that the Lord has promised. You may even try to persuade others to do likewise. But you'd never compel them, physically or legally, to follow your example.
So when MPH says that he thinks gay marriage is wrong, I understand 100%. I even empathize with his point of view, although I may not agree with it. And when he says he doesn't want to explain his views, I both understand what he doesn't want to explain and why he doesn't want to explain it.
But this is only enough to make gay marriage a sin on the level of not paying tithing or shouting "G** D***" when you stub your toe. And for this type of sin, the appropriate response, and the response that is consistent with how Mormons treat every other sin I've ever heard of, is for MPH to not marry a man. Once he's chosen a woman to be his wife and raised his children in a household with a mother and father, his obligation toward this type of sin has ended.
In order for gay marriage to be the type of sin that you'd legislate against, there has to be something more to it. If there isn't a way to explain how gay marriage takes away the rights of others and degrades society as a whole, without using LDS doctrine, it's not the kind of sin you write your congressperson about.
Again, I understand why MPH might not want to, or be able to, convince us that gay marriage is a sin. But I can't imagine any Mormon feeling that way about any other sin they try to make laws against. Do people get really evasive when talking about murder? Do they say that the reasons they oppose burglary are very personal and that they wouldn't be able to make us understand? Do they get offended and defensive when we ask them why they think that even non-Mormons shouldn't be able to rape people?
That's the only thing I don't understand about the anti-SSM crowd. It's fine if you don't believe in it. It's fine if you think it's wrong. It's fine if you'd never do it, and if you'd try to persuade anyone you know not to do it. And I would never ask you to back that up in a debate. But once you get the government involved, getting bashful about your logic no longer works.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I just suggest that the exclusively homosexual mindset has its extreme aspects.
It's amazing how many extreme mindsets are found even among people who are legally permitted to marry.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
BS, I already pointed out how if Gay marriage becomes a legal fact, insurance companies might cease coverage of fertility treatments they currently cover. It will create a demand for adoption, and there already is a greater demand than supply.
These only affect a few, but it can't be said that no heterosexuals will be inconvenienced.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: no one really has a problem with putting these sorts of God's laws into a secular government-enforcement scenario.
...
In order for gay marriage to be the type of sin that you'd legislate against, there has to be something more to it. If there isn't a way to explain how gay marriage takes away the rights of others and degrades society as a whole, without using LDS doctrine, it's not the kind of sin you write your congressperson about.
There are two ways to legally disadvantage a particular type of marriage. One is to not recognize it legally. This is the current status of same-sex marriage.
The other is to criminalize it. This is the current status of polygamy. We should be very clear what we mean here. I'm not talking about punishing someone who uses the legal process to marry two people at the same time. I'm talking about someone who might or might not be legally married to one spouse living with several others as if they were married.
This is currently a felony in some, maybe most states. When someone speaks of a secular government-enforcement scenario, they usually refer to this kind of sanction, not mere lack of recognition.
It's pretty clear MPH opposes government subsidizing of such marriages, but not at all clear that he wants to use government enforcement against same sex marriage in the way we use it against polygamists.
quote:If gay people can marry then there is no justifiable reason from a civil rights point of view that a Man shouldn't be able to have multiple wives.
BlueWizard, I have a fairly detailed and involved theory on why it's just to deny legal recognition of polygamous unions yet allow legal recognition of same-sex unions. If I get a chance I'll link or post it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It will create a demand for adoption, and there already is a greater demand than supply.
Argument #3. And, no, there is NOT a greater demand than supply. There is a greater demand for cute babies than there is a supply of cute babies, but we have a surplus of children up for adoption. That heterosexual couples who wish to adopt might actually wind up picking a child who in the current climate is "backlogged" is not something I consider a downside.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's pretty clear MPH opposes government subsidizing of such marriages, but not at all clear that he wants to use government enforcement against same sex marriage in the way we use it against polygamists.
It doesn't concern me whether he wants to stop it from happening by criminalizing it or by making it impossible through a constitutional redefinition of terms. If he's using the government to keep something from happening, it's left his house and his church and entered the realm of public policy. And he needs something to back that up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If he's using the government to keep something from happening...
Technically, he's trying to prevent people from using the government to make something happen.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: BS, I already pointed out how if Gay marriage becomes a legal fact, insurance companies might cease coverage of fertility treatments they currently cover.
Engage in conjecture much? How about this? If we don't allow gay people to marry other gay people, we might get gay men marrying lesbians. And since we all know that gay men are fitter and more organized than straight men, and gay women are tougher and meaner than straight women, once they start breeding together, they might combine these genes and raise up an army of super-human gay warriors that rounds up all us weak and lazy straight folks, puts us in a camp, and makes us marry people of our own gender for their twisted amusement. Beat that, with your fertile imagination.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: These only affect a few, but it can't be said that no heterosexuals will be inconvenienced.
Oh, is that what President Hinckley was referring to when he spoke of "...the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." Thus saith Isaiah, if thou wilt not forsake thy sinful ways, a few heterosexuals might be inconvenienced.
That being said, it is nice to finally hear some sort of concrete impact to SSM. Even if I don't agree with it, it feels good to have something I can consider. Cheers. Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If he's using the government to keep something from happening...
Technically, he's trying to prevent people from using the government to make something happen.
And the way he's trying to prevent that is by passing a constitutional amendment. It's a pretty long and involved process, and if nothing that happens during that time can be considered to be "using the government", I'd really like to know who he is planning on using to make it happen.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
pooka- your insurance covers infertility treatments? Lucky.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And the way he's trying to prevent that is by passing a constitutional amendment. It's a pretty long and involved process, and if nothing that happens during that time can be considered to be "using the government", I'd really like to know who he is planning on using to make it happen.
You're missing my point entirely. He's not (or at least he hasn't in this thread) proposed the criminalization of two people living as a committed couple or performing any kind of personal ceremony they wish.
He's denying government recognition of their union, not preventing it.
Compare this to what happens to polygamists: they get thrown in jail.
It's the difference between not giving someone a subsidized housing loan and confiscating their house when they borrow money from a bank.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: But if there is no difference then there are two possibilities: 1) Homosexual attraction is purely physical. or 2) It might be possible for a gay person to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.
That doesn't follow. It isn't a matter of it being true or false, pooka, it's simply that you're saying "If A, then either B or C", and it does not follow that either B or C necessarily follow from A.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: BS, I already pointed out how if Gay marriage becomes a legal fact, insurance companies might cease coverage of fertility treatments they currently cover. It will create a demand for adoption, and there already is a greater demand than supply.
These only affect a few, but it can't be said that no heterosexuals will be inconvenienced.
It would really be lovely if you could just say: "I'm against gay marriage, and I'm going to find anything, however small, that might be used to support it, but the bottom line is, I'm against it, and even if I couldn't find a single thing to justify that opposition, I'd still be against it."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Bok and Karl: If there is no psychological difference between men and women, then you are right and I am wrong.
But I think there is a difference. I have ventured to say what that difference might be. Most people have some idea there is a difference, they just aren't able to phrase it without some kind of offensive value judgement. Even though my statement was not a value judgement, it ruffled all kinds of feathers.
But if there is no difference then there are two possibilities: 1) Homosexual attraction is purely physical. or 2) It might be possible for a gay person to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.
And yeah, I know I take things to extremes. I really don't see the world as all black all white. I just suggest that the exclusively homosexual mindset has its extreme aspects.
I've never said that there is "no psychological difference between men and women". However, I do not think that any of the differences hold true for all men or all women. I think of any psychological trait you can name, there will be both men and women who exhibit that trait, even if that same trait is overwhelmingly present in one sex and only present in a minority of the opposite. (Though I also suspect there are very few, if any, traits so blatantly gender specific. Rather most would just follow general trends.)
As for your two possibilities, I imagine a lot of "attraction" is purely physical. Hopefully those whose attraction is purely and solely physical will take a cold shower or otherwise clear their heads before getting married, though lord knows straight people haven't always shown such restraint, so gay people can hardly be required to do better.
Additionally, I don't doubt that many gay people could find themselves attracted to a member of the opposite sex. Whether that attraction is enough to sustain a life-long commitment is really a case-by-case judgement call neither you nor I are qualified to make. But let me pose this question: If a man is sexually attracted to a strong, indepentent, stereotypicall "masculine" woman with a flat chest and is really turned on by a fuzzy lip and hairy legs, would you call him a latent homosexual? I wouldn't. On the other hand, I've seen photos of female-to-male transsexuals that were absolutely HOT. If I met one and they had a fantastic personality, I could conceivably fall in love with one before finding out that she didn't have a normally functional penis. I hope that I'm not so shallow that this discovery (in due course) wouldn't be a sole determining factor in whether or not I continued the relationship. Does this fact alone mean I'm latently straight? Does it mean that, well, if I could in this rare scenario, actually have a relationship with a biological woman, that I should be forced to by society? I think not.
And I'd appreciate it if you'd define terms like "exclusive homosexual mindset". I have a sneaking suspicion it carries with it a lot of straw man baggage. IMHO.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't even know if there's really such thing as an exclusively heterosexual mindset, honestly. I also think that a lot of the traits we associate with men and women are learned. Girls play house, boys play...whatever boys play...
Screw you guys. I played Giant Insects Attacking a Tiny Miniature Planet that Everybody Was Supposed to Be Colonizing After Being Shrunk.
-pH
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You're missing my point entirely. He's not (or at least he hasn't in this thread) proposed the criminalization of two people living as a committed couple or performing any kind of personal ceremony they wish.
He's denying government recognition of their union, not preventing it.
Compare this to what happens to polygamists: they get thrown in jail.
It's the difference between not giving someone a subsidized housing loan and confiscating their house when they borrow money from a bank.
Here's what I said when you made that exact same argument last time, in case you missed it:
It doesn't concern me whether he wants to stop it from happening by criminalizing it or by making it impossible through a constitutional redefinition of terms. If he's using the government to keep something from happening, it's left his house and his church and entered the realm of public policy. And he needs something to back that up.
Off to work. Bye.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by pooka: BS, I already pointed out how if Gay marriage becomes a legal fact, insurance companies might cease coverage of fertility treatments they currently cover. It will create a demand for adoption, and there already is a greater demand than supply.
These only affect a few, but it can't be said that no heterosexuals will be inconvenienced.
It would really be lovely if you could just say: "I'm against gay marriage, and I'm going to find anything, however small, that might be used to support it, but the bottom line is, I'm against it, and even if I couldn't find a single thing to justify that opposition, I'd still be against it."
It would really be lovely if you could, for once, pretend that you are capable of having a civil discussion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Here's what I said when you made that exact same argument last time, in case you missed it:
Perhaps instead of simply repeating yourself verbatim, you could attempt to explain your point further.
I attempted to explain what I meant in other words. You copied and pasted. And you wonder why people might be convinced you are not engaging in this discussion in good faith?
quote:It doesn't concern me whether he wants to stop it from happening by criminalizing it or by making it impossible through a constitutional redefinition of terms. If he's using the government to keep something from happening, it's left his house and his church and entered the realm of public policy.
Once again (but in other words in the hopes that you might engage in discussion):
What is the "it" he is trying to stop from happening here? There are two "its" at issue: 1) the right to live with a person of the same sex in a committed, sexual relationship. 2.) the right to have that relationship recognized by the government.
I have given a concrete example of how the two its operate in this country.
You, twice now, have responded to that comparison by conflating them into a single it. Until your response even acknowledges that I was talking about two different things, you haven't responded to my point.
That's fine. You don't have to respond to my point. But your snotty little repostings don't actually mean you've said anything relevant, either.
quote:And he needs something to back that up.
Unfortunately for you, he is not required to share whatever that something is with you. Now that you've shown yourself incapable of respecting his wishes in that regard, it is unlikely he's ever going to attempt to discuss it with you again.
It would behoove you to remember that, in this country, the people in the majority have ways of enacting their policy choices into law. If you wish those policy choices to not become law, the burden is on you to convince them.
Attempting to call people out on the carpet isn't going to get that done.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Attempting to call people out on the carpet isn't going to get that done.
Would linoleum work?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No. Hardwood only.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I don't even know if there's really such thing as an exclusively heterosexual mindset, honestly. I also think that a lot of the traits we associate with men and women are learned. Girls play house, boys play...whatever boys play...
I don't know. Sure there is some of it, but some things I think are inherent and we're just born with them. Of course no one can solve the nature/nurture argument here, but still.
For example, I have boy/girl twins. To keep my sanity, I raised them as close together as possible, they ate at the same time, slept at the same time, wore the same clothes (sure I had some gender-specific, but I bought mostly gender-neutral clothes to simplify my life), played with the same toys. And yet, there was a difference between the two right away and always has been. When my brother gave my son a toddler baseball set when they were about 15 months old, Daniel took the bat and tried to hit people with it, when I told him no and he set it down, Abigail picked it up and tried to use it to brush her hair. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
A lot of people don't realize how they react differently to boys and girls. They often think they're treating them completely the same, and then decide that their different behavior must reflect something inborn.
My partner and I were at a pizza place with our daughter when she was about 2. Or maybe not even 2. She was a bald baby, and it took a while before she started having a lot of hair. At the time, her hair was fairly short. She was wearing a dress, but she was sitting down in a booth, so you couldn't really see it that well.
This guy came over when he saw us and started talking to Tova: "What a big boy! Hey, there, slugger." That sort of thing. My partner pointed out that she was a girl, and without blinking, and apparently without even noticing what he was doing, he just shifted gears to, "What a pretty little girl! Aren't you the sweetest!"
It's just the way our culture tends to do things. That's not to say that there aren't inborn traits. Tova has been a fiend for pink and lace all her life, and neither one of us has the first clue where that came from.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
But studies show differences even in infants. If you look at how long a baby stares at an image, girls stare at faces longer, boys at mobiles. This is in like babies under 6 months old, so pretty much all they are capable of doing is choose what to look at.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: But studies show differences even in infants. If you look at how long a baby stares at an image, girls stare at faces longer, boys at mobiles. This is in like babies under 6 months old, so pretty much all they are capable of doing is choose what to look at.
It's entirely possible that people treat girls and boys differently from birth. Maybe girls are fussed over more.
When I was very little, I only wanted to play with toy cars and rocks and climb trees and whatnot.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When I was little I used the winged my little ponies as battle mounts for my GI Joes.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Dagonee:
They see same sex marriage as a fundamental redefinition of the institution of marriage that drives it away from the fundamental purpose of the institution.
I'm not being obnoxious, I just want to know:
A) What is the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage, as you see it?
B) What is wrong with redefining it?
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Scholar, regardless of how much is innate, there is so much that society puts onto people that you'll never truly know how much is which.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: Dagonee:
They see same sex marriage as a fundamental redefinition of the institution of marriage that drives it away from the fundamental purpose of the institution.
I'm not being obnoxious, I just want to know:
A) What is the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage, as you see it?
B) What is wrong with redefining it?
You need to ask someone who opposes changing the laws. I won't speak for them.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: But studies show differences even in infants. If you look at how long a baby stares at an image, girls stare at faces longer, boys at mobiles. This is in like babies under 6 months old, so pretty much all they are capable of doing is choose what to look at.
I strongly suspect that in such studies this is still just a general trend. Even if the percentage of boys who preferred mobiles was a striking 85%, that would also mean that 15% of boys looked longer at faces. If you can point to such studies and show that they prove me wrong in this guess, please do so. And if I'm right, what would this mean? Are the 15% abnormal? Should we screen them for some disease because they don't hold to "natural" gender-specific behavior? Or is it more likely that it's totally natural that there be some percentage of each gender that doesn't hold to the general trends of that gender? (Or even that no one holds to all the general trends of their own gender?)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:A) What is the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage, as you see it?
B) What is wrong with redefining it?
I won't touch the "fundamental purpose" but the problem is that marriage confers automatic rights on couples that are not available to others who are in committed relationships. GOVERNMENT's definition of marriage includes those things.
Redefining marriage without solving this broader issue is, to my way of thinking, a mistake.
It would enshrine in the Constitution a part of the current situation which feels discriminatory to me, without at the same time doing something to address that inequality.
And that, to me, is where the mistake lies. I have no problem with people not being ready for gay marriage. What I have a problem with is what I see as unequal treatment built into our laws.
I just see this ammendment as: 1) not solving anything 2) addressing one-half of a current social problem 3) leaving the part of the problem that has much larger implications to us as society completely unresolved.
If this ammendment passes, I believe it will be one of those things that prove an embarrassment to future generations and has to be repealed.
Mainly because whatever else it does, it does one thing that I think is very bad for us as a country -- and that is setting up situation in which a group of people does not have the same rights and privileges as everyone else.
If we legally eliminated the civil benefits of marriage from our laws, this would not be a problem. Nor would it be a problem if we created civil unions open to anyone.
But to leave the benefits of marriage intact and then ammend the constitution to limit who CAN marry, that sets up an inequality I think we're going to regret.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I just think there are SOME times and some issues in this society that we should force ourselves to deal with all sides of an issue before moving forward.
When it comes to relatively permanent changes like this (making a Constitutional ammendment), I think the onus is on the people wanting to make that change to prove that there aren't undesired effects on any identifiable portion of our population BEFORE proceeding.
And by undesired, I mean specifically setting up situations that are not in the spirit of the remainder of our constitution.
This ammendment doesn't pass the smell test, IMO.
[ June 05, 2006, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think the onus is on the people wanting to make that change to prove that there aren't undesired effects on any identifiable portion of our population BEFORE proceeding.
I agree.
In this case, though, I think the state legislatures are already lined up to approve this. Which means that, at this point, the burden is on those opposing it to change others' minds.
I do think a lot of this stems from the distaste over having had the abortion issue "settled" by the courts. I see the amendment as a preemptive strike against judicially-implemented change.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Hey dudes. Loads of overtime, but I do have a couple minutes this morning.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Once again (but in other words in the hopes that you might engage in discussion):
What is the "it" he is trying to stop from happening here? There are two "its" at issue: 1) the right to live with a person of the same sex in a committed, sexual relationship. 2.) the right to have that relationship recognized by the government.
I have given a concrete example of how the two its operate in this country.
You, twice now, have responded to that comparison by conflating them into a single it. Until your response even acknowledges that I was talking about two different things, you haven't responded to my point.
That's fine. You don't have to respond to my point. But your snotty little repostings don't actually mean you've said anything relevant, either.
Which "it" is this constitutional amendment going to prevent? That's the "it" to which I was referring.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Unfortunately for you, he is not required to share whatever that something is with you. Now that you've shown yourself incapable of respecting his wishes in that regard, it is unlikely he's ever going to attempt to discuss it with you again.
When you say required, if you mean that there's no law compelling him to tell me these things, I realize that. I'm not even going to try to amend the constitution to make him explain his reasons to me.
When I said there has to be something more, I was referring to consistency in his beliefs. Of course, he can believe whatever he wants, and he can vote however he wants. But if he votes for this amendment without being able to explain it in non-doctrinal terms, he's removing his belief system from the realm of traditional non-intrusive Christianity and entering the camp of the radical Shi'a Muslims who gave the Ayatollah Khomeini the power to force women to wear burqas on the street. If he votes for this, without a better explaination, it's no better than trying to enact a law compelling people to pay tithing or making all business licenses void on Sunday.
There's a Christian principle of non-interference with purely secular laws. It goes along with the "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" idea. It's a good principle, and one that Christianity has not always followed. But when they have, it has helped them, morally if nothing else. Mormonism has historically been remarkably good about following this principle, and it's one of the most admirable thing about the religion. This amendment, based upon the way it's been defended in this thread, seems the exact sort of things that Mormons would have traditionally steered clear of. Gay people are trying to avail themselves of a strictly secular rite, and one that does absolutely nothing to their position in the LDS church. No one is proposing the idea that the church should be forced to marry gay people in the temple, or stop thinking of their union as sinful. They're just giving these people rights in institutions that the LDS church has never even aspired to take part in.
Once Mormons take legal action regarding this based on nothing other than doctrinal beliefs they're radically re-defining who they are as a church and as members of society. If they don't want to leave their position as some of the most tolerant and respectful people on Earth and join the ranks of religious dictators, there has to be something non-doctrinally explainable in MPH's position.
Of course, if he does want to make this shift, that's his choice too, and he has all the rights that the Constitution grants him in this respect.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You need to ask someone who opposes changing the laws. I won't speak for them.
That was meant ironically, right?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which "it" is this constitutional amendment going to prevent? That's the "it" to which I was referring.
Yes, but that "it" can't be accomplished through criminal means, making your statement that you don't care if "it" is done through criminal law or constitutional amendment nonsensical.
You still haven't acknowledged the distinction between the two acts. Not surprising, really.
quote:When I said there has to be something more, I was referring to consistency in his beliefs. Of course, he can believe whatever he wants, and he can vote however he wants. But if he votes for this amendment without being able to explain it in non-doctrinal terms, he's removing his belief system from the realm of traditional non-intrusive Christianity and entering the camp of the radical Shi'a Muslims who gave the Ayatollah Khomeini the power to force women to wear burqas on the street. If he votes for this, without a better explaination, it's no better than trying to enact a law compelling people to pay tithing or making all business licenses void on Sunday.
...
there has to be something non-doctrinally explainable in MPH's position.
And he's still not required to share that with you. He's already states that he believes that the secular effects of allowing same-sex civil marriage will be bad in a secular manner.
You could be considerate enough to take him at his word in that instead of drawing comparisons to burqa compulsion.
quote:That was meant ironically, right?
It's not surprising to me that you can't see the difference between stating what their beliefs are and coming to their defense when badgered. Someone who could see the difference strikes me as someone less likely to do the badgering.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:There's a Christian principle of non-interference with purely secular laws. It goes along with the "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" idea. It's a good principle, and one that Christianity has not always followed. But when they have, it has helped them, morally if nothing else. Mormonism has historically been remarkably good about following this principle, and it's one of the most admirable thing about the religion. This amendment, based upon the way it's been defended in this thread, seems the exact sort of things that Mormons would have traditionally steered clear of. Gay people are trying to avail themselves of a strictly secular rite, and one that does absolutely nothing to their position in the LDS church. No one is proposing the idea that the church should be forced to marry gay people in the temple, or stop thinking of their union as sinful. They're just giving these people rights in institutions that the LDS church has never even aspired to take part in.
Once Mormons take legal action regarding this based on nothing other than doctrinal beliefs they're radically re-defining who they are as a church and as members of society. If they don't want to leave their position as some of the most tolerant and respectful people on Earth and join the ranks of religious dictators, there has to be something non-doctrinally explainable in MPH's position.
I can't speak for the "Christian Principle" you speak of, except to say I don't think it's universally applied by Christians in the way you apply it here. The rest of this quote shows a profound misunderstanding of the Mormon view of the role of The Church in secular government.
The LDS church has always used its influence to fight in political issues that it deems important to the strength of communities. One huge area has been in fighting against measures to allow gambling and the lottery in places that previously don't/didn't have it.
Indeed, it could be argued that to many LDS, there is nothing that is "purely secular" since everything we do and everything we fight for has direct bearing on our worthiness for God's blessings. (Any currently active LDS feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Also, to what antecedent is the pronoun "their" referring in the following quote:
quote:Gay people are trying to avail themselves of a strictly secular rite, and one that does absolutely nothing to their position in the LDS church.
If it's "Gays" you're flat out wrong. If it's "Mormons" (which your sentence really doesn't make clear), I take it to mean you are saying being against this amendment doesn't affect a Mormon's standing in the church. That's probably true in that the LDS church rarely if ever disciplines people for their personal political opinions. However, no Mormon who understands his religion believes that they will not be held accountable by God for their actions (or inactions) simply because they are political.
[ June 05, 2006, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I am enjoying this discussion. I am butting in. Watch out, here I come.
quote:Yes, but that "it" can't be accomplished through criminal means, making your statement that you don't care if "it" is done through criminal law or constitutional amendment nonsensical.
You still haven't acknowledged the distinction between the two acts. Not surprising, really.
I'm sorry, Dagonee, but in my totally unbiased, lawyerly trained and prenaturally fair judgement, Baron Samedi is right. The distinction you want him to acknowledge is irrelevant to his point. His point, as I understand it, is that, in his opinion, ANY public policy must be defensible on grounds other than religious dogma. If the policy change attempted is to enshrine a specific definition of marriage in the constitution or criminalizing SSM in statutory law is entirely irrelevant.
quote:And he's still not required to share that with you. He's already states that he believes that the secular effects of allowing same-sex civil marriage will be bad in a secular manner.
Naturally mr_porteiro_head is required to share exactly whatever he wishes on Hatrack, and not a syllable more. Indeed, he seems to have exercised his priveledge to bow out of this discussion. And I am morally certain that the good Baron agrees with me that it is mr_porteiro_head's right to do so.
However, as a matter of general principle, I believe it is right to put pressure on opponents of SSM on this point in any public debate on the subject. It is NOT enough to state that one believes "the secular effects of allowing same-sex civil marriage will be bad in a secular manner". Unless these general evils are concretisized in some way it is not possible to evaluate (or refute) them in a rational manner.
The general inability or unwillingness by SSM opponents to give concrete examples of the negative consequences that may come along with SSM goes a long way to suggest the weakness of their position.
P.S. to avoid unnecessary arguments I wish to emphasise that I do not "require" mr_porteiro_head, or any other specific SSM opponent, to provide such secular arguments asked for above and that I am fully aware of the fact that Dagonee suports (civil) SSM and is in no way, shape or form obligated to provide a defence on a position that he does not hold (or, for that matter, defend any position he does hold, is sympathetic to, or may conceivably hold in the future).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm sorry, Dagonee, but in my totally unbiased, lawyerly trained and prenaturally fair judgement, Baron Samedi is right. The distinction you want him to acknowledge is irrelevant to his point. His point, as I understand it, is that, in his opinion, ANY public policy must be defensible on grounds other than religious dogma. If the policy change attempted is to enshrine a specific definition of marriage in the constitution or criminalizing SSM in statutory law is entirely irrelevant.
However, the type of harm to be prevented and the level of harm is very relevant to deciding whether a particular group is entitled to receive a particular government benefit.
A much higher level of harm must be shown in order to criminalize something than to provide a benefit to one group but not another. And that is totally relevant to this conversation.
It'd be one thing for BS to say, "MPH hasn't shown sufficient harm for either type of restriction." It's another thing to continually refuse to acknowledge that the distinction exists.
quote:However, as a matter of general principle, I believe it is right to put pressure on opponents of SSM on this point in any public debate on the subject. It is NOT enough to state that one believes "the secular effects of allowing same-sex civil marriage will be bad in a secular manner". Unless these general evils are concretisized in some way it is not possible to evaluate (or refute) them in a rational manner.
Fine, but as a matter of general principle, it is rude and demonstrates a lack of good faith in the discussion to repeatedly misstate someone's position after explicit statements from that person that the misstatement is, in fact, incorrect.
quote:However, no Mormon who understands his religion believes that they will not be held accountable by God for their actions (or inactions) simply because they are political.
This is a very good point, Karl, and not restricted to Mormons (although I recognize you were responding to a specific example and weren't saying it was so restricted). Believe me, I struggled greatly with this issue. I very early on decided that criminal sanctions against truly consensual, private sexual conduct between two adults. This presented no challenge to me religiously.
Supporting same sex civil marriage required me to think very deeply about the two different institutions at issue here. Had this reasoning process been explicated fully here during it's development (which predated both my arrival at the 'Rack and law school), I'm sure some people would have considered it highly semantical and legalistic. But one issue involved was definitely my accountability for my political beliefs.
By the way, this is directly relevant to why I think the distinction between criminalizing and failure to recognize is CRITICAL to any attempt to resolve this issue.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: But studies show differences even in infants. If you look at how long a baby stares at an image, girls stare at faces longer, boys at mobiles. This is in like babies under 6 months old, so pretty much all they are capable of doing is choose what to look at.
I strongly suspect that in such studies this is still just a general trend. Even if the percentage of boys who preferred mobiles was a striking 85%, that would also mean that 15% of boys looked longer at faces. If you can point to such studies and show that they prove me wrong in this guess, please do so. And if I'm right, what would this mean? Are the 15% abnormal? Should we screen them for some disease because they don't hold to "natural" gender-specific behavior? Or is it more likely that it's totally natural that there be some percentage of each gender that doesn't hold to the general trends of that gender? (Or even that no one holds to all the general trends of their own gender?)
All life exists within ranges, with extremes at both ends. There are very few arguments where I don't believe nature and nurture work together. From the argument, it seemed like people want to deny that the nature aspect of gender (except for physiologically). I don't think you can do that and have a fair representation of what if going on.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
You (all, in general) can argue the theology, morality, and semantics all you want, but in the end, as I've said many times before, this comes down to an issue of Law and Civil Rights, nothing more.
Someone pointed out that we are dealing with a two part argument-
1.) the right of two people to live together in a commited relationship.
2.) the right of those two people to have that relationship recognised by the Government.
Well, of course, there is nothing to prevent the first item from happening. Of course, many people will take moral issue with it, but your view of morality does not dictate the actions of other people, and morality is not for the government to decide.
I doubt that anyone here who supports Same Sex Marriage is saying the various religions and churches should be in any way compelled to believe or do anything. If you think gay people are immoral, then more power to you. But, you have to accept that your personal belief of what is and isn't immoral can't be used to deny civil rights to any one group while allowing those same civil rights to a very similar group living under very similar circumstances.
Every issue in question here is a legal issue (insurance, medical decisions, inheritance, etc...), that is, every issue with respect to changing the Constitution, and granting or denying legal rights to same sex couples.
You are free to hold your own personal and religious beliefs, but accept that those personal and religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law or civil rights in a free country.
You and your church may choose to oppose and refuse to sanction same sex marriage and you are within your rights to do so, just as the Catholic Church is free to view divorce in a different light than the law. Should we let the Catholic Church's view dictate all divorce law in the USA, even when those views go against other religions and other beliefs systems; I don't think so.
Further, while you and your church many not recognise, sanction, or sanctify gay marriage, you must also accept that many many churches WILL. In fact, many many churches DO, but are currently restricted by law.
The fact that this issue is not cut and dried, the fact that Gay Marriage has been proposed in many states and countries, and that it has been enacted in several, should tell us that this is an issue that is open to debate, and isn't even remotely clear enough to be enshrined in the Constitution.
Lastly, several political analysts have said the the Constitutional Ammendment doesn't stand a chance of passing and every member of Congress knows it. The only reason the suggestion exists is to gain the favor and votes of the Religious Right. There is no real intention to enact anything here, it is simply a political ploy, made for politicaal gain.
Yes, you are all more than free to argue and discuss the various religious and moral aspects of the issue, just a long as you remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
For what it's worth.
Steve/BlueWizad
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ...morality is not for the government to decide. ...remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
I utterly reject this premise. I believe every law is moral at its base. Saying my religious views cannot inform how I approach an issue is exactly equivalent (IMO) to me stating that your (presumably non-religious) sense of right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical should not affect your vote. Your morality informs how you vote; why should I be denied equal priviledge, simply on the basis that my morality is (primarily) religiously derived? You have values, I have values, they conflict; to me, adjudicating that conflict is exactly what the legislative and democratic process is all about.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Should we let the Catholic Church's view dictate all divorce law in the USA, even when those views go against other religions and other beliefs systems; I don't think so.
If the majority of voters in the United States were Catholic, I would definitely expect that to have a major impact in divorce laws, the legality of abortion, and a whole slew of other laws. I don't see anything wrong with that.
quote:Yes, you are all more than free to argue and discuss the various religious and moral aspects of the issue, just a long as you remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
It is the voice of the people, through the framework of the constitution, who determine the laws in the USA. The religious views of those people and always have affected how they vote. This is not going to change.
If anybody expects me to set aside my opinions and views which are considered religious when I vote on any subject, you're going to be dissapointed. I will vote according to my conscience, and I won't even try to separate my religion out from that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
A long-winded post on the nature of the right at issue, cobbled together from several posts here and elsewhere.
1. There is no right to have a relationship recognized by the government.
When I say "right" here, I am referring simply to the whether a legislature could pass a law that contravenes the right. Here, I think most people would agree that a state could constitutionally pass a law stating "This state will no longer issue marriage licenses. Whether or not two people have an existing marriage license from this or any other state will no longer be relevant to making any determination in law and equity."
2. A brief description of equal protection (or equal treatment by the law).
The essence of equal protection is that distinctions in the law should be meaningful and of good purpose. For example, explicit distinctions based on race are treated very suspiciously. Without a compelling government interest and a race-based distinction narrowly tailored to meet that interest, they just flat out aren't allowed. Most people are familiar with this aspect of equal protection, if not the specific jargon.
What many don't appreciate is that the law is full of distinctions. Every single law makes a distinction. Some of these distinctions are based on natural characteristics. Some are based on actions taken by particular people. For example, we don't allow people who are 3 to marry. We fine people based on how fast they drive. Some people go to jail and some don't - based on their behavior and the result of a trial.
Most people know this, but don't think of these distinctions as implicating the equal protection clause. But, every such distinction is technically reviewable by those who suffer injury due to it. The standard of review is called "rational basis," and it means that if a judge can think of a rational reason that the policy serves a legitimate state interest, it will be allowed.
Just knowing that standard makes the equal protection validity of those examples clear. 3 yar olds can't consent to marriage, speeders are dangerous, and people who commit crimes need to be punished/deterred/incapcaitated/rehabilitated.
Some distinctions, however, we distrust inherently. We assume they never serve a good purpose and require the government to prove their legitimate purpose AND necessity before allowing them. Race is the paradigm example.
3. An example of the difference between a right to something and a right to have something provided on an equal basis.
If our government creates gov't subsidized loans for first time homebuyers, it has made a distinction between people who own homes and want to buy them, people who already own homes but want to buy new ones, and people who want to borrow money to buy a boat.
These are valid distinctions when you consider the statistics that demonstrate that the first purchase of a home has the biggest effect on economic stability of almost any factor except education.
If we were to modify the policy so that only homebuyers who were over 5'7" tall could obtain the loans, we would consider that to be a violation of the civil right of equal protection, because the distinction has no rational connection to any legitimate government purpose. We would not say that the civil right to a government subsidized loan has been violated because there is no such right. However, there is a right to not be subject to distinctions which bear no rational basis to the policy being implemented. Such a case would be decided under the 14th amendment equal protection clause, which is simply the shorthand we use for claims of this type.
4. The equal protection clause of the federal constitution does not require granting access to to civil marriage to same sex couples.
As we have seen, there is no right to government recognition of civil marriage. There is a right to not have the provision of a generally offered government benefit be based on distinctions which bear no rational relation to the policy. We group this right under the term "equal protection." (You'll have to take my word on that for now.)
I strongly believe that the justification for the benefits we extend to married couples are justified by the reproductive capacity represented by most male/female adult pairs and the benefits to children and society that come from encouraging a stable structure.
One of the ways in which rational relationship to purpose is tested is by hypothetically modifying the policy to remove the distinction and seeing how it would meet the policy goals as well as the original policy with the distinction. Would removing the distinction hinder the goal? Would it serve the goal? Or would it have no effect on the goal? Call the first question a demonstration of inconvenience if answered "yes."
When the court looks at these questions, it's looking to see if a case can rationally be made that removing the distinction would harm the goal. If so, then the law will be upheld, even if a better case can be made that removing the distinction would serve the law. However, the law will also be upheld even if no rational case can be made that removing the distinction would harm the goal, as long as a rational case can be made that it wouldn't further the goal, either (i.e., answering yes to the third question). This is because it is legislature's job to allocate resources. If the payoff to society of extending marital privileges and benefits to same-sex couples is less than the payoff of extending them to mixed-sex couples, then the legislature is allowed to decide that spending resources in this manner is not worth it to society.
My contention is that the distinction of mixed gender does bear a rational relationship to the purpose of marriage because that purpose relates to the creation of family units for the rearing of children produced by the couple being married. The payoff to society is less for couples that will definitely not produce offspring between them, even if we merely value that contribution based on the likelihood of caring for children. I think that it is therefore constitutional for the legislature to make the cost-benefit analysis and decline to extend the benefits to same sex couples.
5. Anticipatory responses to a few objections.
a. The original purpose of marriage isn't related to procreation. Even if this statement is true, the standard is not what the purpose was when enacted, but whether the purpose is one that could be attributed to the policy.
b. We let people who can’t reproduce get married. True. However, policies can be over- and under- inclusive, as long as the distinction can serve as a proxy. We could either require all couples seeking marriage to obtain a fertility test, or use mixed gender as a convenient proxy. We don't allow a brother and sister who are raising a deceased sibling's children to marry or receive marriage benefits. We allow sterile couples to marry. This is because the rules we have for marital eligibility are a proxy for what's being accomplished.
6. Although the equal protection clause does not require providing same-sex couples access to civil marriage, the principles that inform the equal protection clause strongly argue favor in favor of doing so.
I have never been one to believe that all things a government should do are things that it constitutionally must do. We have a legal institution aimed at helping couples who are producing child in the most common way. Changes to that institution that will hurt it should not be made. Benefits similar to those provided by the institution of legal marriage do not have to (constitutionally) be provided to people who desire a different form of family unit.
However, where we can provide the benefits to people for essentially zero cost, it is proper to do so, especially when there are other likely societal benefits that might arise. For reasons I’ve outlined in other posts, I think the cost-benefit ratio tips in the direction of supporting SSM on a policy, not constitutional basis. Heterosexual couples have no right to government recognition of their marriages. However, government gives us many things that we don't have a right to, because we judge the giving of those things to be beneficial to society.
Any inequity that exists because of lack of SSM derives from the fact that we could provide same sex couples with a significant civil benefit (not right) without interfering with the purpose of the institution from which the benefits derive.
7. The difference between same-sex civil marriage and civil polygamy.
There are two possible ways to recognize polygamy.
1.) Create a new legal institution called poly-marriage that has unique rules suited to polygamous relationships.
2.) Modify the existing relationship by simply removing the distinction we currently have of "two people."
The first is easily dealt with: if it's a new legal entity being made, then the polygamist claimants will not be receiving the same benefit. They will be receiving a different benefit. And (this is terribly legalistic, I know, but I do think it's an important distinction), therefore, there is no equal protection violation based on denying a particular government benefit to a group based on a distinction.
The second is also easily dealt with. Someone suggested searching and replacing "man" and "woman" (and their plurals and alternate forms) with "person" or "persons" in order to implement same sex marriage. There is only one current legal doctrine that I am aware of would be rendered nonsensical by such a claim, the presumption of paternity, and I think it's easily modified to avoid problems by extending an existing exception to that presumption to cover same-sex couples.
However, there is no such easy substitution for polygamist marriages, simply because there are many, many doctrines that rely on their only being one other spouse. For example, suppose there is a doctrine, "In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of the wishes of a married patient as to the maintenance of life support in the case of terminal illness, the decision to maintain or remove life support shall be made by the patient's spouse."*
What do we do? Majority rule of the other spouses? The spouse with longest tenure? Both methods seem to have reasonable policy explanations underlying them. It requires someone to make a policy judgment to modify this rule. And this is merely one rule of hundreds. Some of these rules are about property, which can be divided. Some are about decisions which can't really be divided. The cost of implementation is enormous, and it's possible that some of the choices would make adjudicating individual issues concerning two-person marriage more complicated.
*This is not the actual statement of any particular rule, but it is a fair representation of the type of rules I'm talking about.
[ June 05, 2006, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:If the majority of voters in the United States were Catholic, I would definitely expect that to have a major impact in divorce laws, the legality of abortion, and a whole slew of other laws. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Why not? It completely negates separation of church and state and freedom of religion.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why not? It completely negates separation of church and state and freedom of religion.
No, it doesn't. There's nothing magical about the divorce laws we have now - some states make it much easier than others to get divorce. If the populace is expressing their will about how difficult it should be to get a divorce, then people who think divorce should be harder to get - for whatever reason - have just as much right to be heard and exert political influence as those who wish to make it easier to get a divorce.
Not all those opposing easing of divorce requirements will do so for religious reasons. Fortunately, we don't ask voters to declare that they aren't allowing "improper" influences to affect their votes.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Should we let the Catholic Church's view dictate all divorce law in the USA, even when those views go against other religions and other beliefs systems; I don't think so.
If the majority of voters in the United States were Catholic, I would definitely expect that to have a major impact in divorce laws, the legality of abortion, and a whole slew of other laws. I don't see anything wrong with that.
This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
People who think that they have the right to push their religious views on members of other religions needn't complain when it turns on them.
Yet they always do. Loudly.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: You (all, in general) can argue the theology, morality, and semantics all you want, but in the end, as I've said many times before, this comes down to an issue of Law and Civil Rights, nothing more.
Someone pointed out that we are dealing with a two part argument-
1.) the right of two people to live together in a commited relationship.
2.) the right of those two people to have that relationship recognised by the Government.
I don't agree. It's the right of those people to be treated equally under the law. That is, there is no right to have that relationship recognized by the government unless the government recognizes that same right for some. In which case, the government is obligated either to cease recognizing it for those some, or extend it equally to all.
I have no problem with the government getting out of the marriage biz completely. But a government founded on the principle of equality of all men before the law is completely out of line if it gives recognition and benefits to one group and excludes another group from the same.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
I disagree.
Freedom of religion is the freedom to woship God as you please, not the freedom to never be affected by the religion of others.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ...morality is not for the government to decide. ...remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
I utterly reject this premise. I believe every law is moral at its base. Saying my religious views cannot inform how I approach an issue is exactly equivalent (IMO) to me stating that your (presumably non-religious) sense of right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical should not affect your vote. Your morality informs how you vote; why should I be denied equal priviledge, simply on the basis that my morality is (primarily) religiously derived? You have values, I have values, they conflict; to me, adjudicating that conflict is exactly what the legislative and democratic process is all about.
You misunderstand. All other things being equal, certainly let your religious views inform your decisions. That's not the issue. The issue is when you insist on forcing others to live by your personal religious morality. There's a reason the First Amendment doesn't bar Congress from establishing a language or a flag or the like, but does bar it from establishing a religion.
When you use the power of the law to force other people to live according to your religious views, that is state-established religion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's a fine line being discussed though. I'm wary of, but have little objection to people voting some basic religious based morality into law.
Thou shalt not kill is perfectly acceptable to me, as is thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not bear false witness, but I draw the line somewhere around making any of the other commandments into law. The first three make sense because they stretch across all religions, and all secular divides as well. One could argue that adultery does too, but I'm on the fence over legislating that.
There comes a point when you enter the grey area, when your voting your religious doctrine into law violates my secular or other religious right to not have that law violate my personal freedoms.
I would fully expect a religious person to vote their religious based morality into law, but that doesn't mean I always think that vote, even if it is a majority of the people, should always result in a law being made. America was founded on a majority rule, but with respect for minority rights. Even a majority of the people, be they Catholic, Jewish, or whatever, can't vote their morality into law if it significantly hinders the rights of the minority. What is "significantly?" Well, that's for the courts to decide I suppose, and even I couldn't tell you, it's a case by case basis.
But I don't think there is any clear definition, or any clear Yes or No when it comes to doctrine influencing or outright being made into law. It's all one giant grey area.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
sL: correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I recall you using God's promises to the Israelites as a justification for modern Israel's actions?
quote: The issue is when you insist on forcing others to live by your personal religious morality.
I haven't seen anybody try to do that in this thread. Not recognizing SSM is not forcing others to obey any religious tenant.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
I disagree.
Freedom of religion is the freedom to woship God as you please, not the freedom to never be affected by the religion of others.
Semantics. There are religious groups in this country which recognize same-sex marriage. A federal amendment barring state recognition of such marriages interferes with their freedom to practice their religion.
It is, in fact, establishing a particular religious conception of marriage as the law of the land, at the expense of other religious conceptions of marriage.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: sL: correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I recall you using God's promises to the Israelites as a justification for modern Israel's actions?
quote: The issue is when you insist on forcing others to live by your personal religious morality.
I haven't seen anybody try to do that in this thread. Not recognizing SSM is not forcing others to obey any religious tenant.
I get that you think this is the case. But I think you're mistaken.
The state redistributes money to married couples. By doing so for opposite-sex marriages and not for same-sex marriages, it is engaging in punitive activity against same-sex couples. I mean, where do you think those benefits from from in the first place?
When you tell me, "Marry a man, and you can have these goodies. Marry a woman, and we deny them. And all because Christianity says so," you are engaging in coercive acts against me.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Are you going to answer my question about God's promises to Israel?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: sL: correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I recall you using God's promises to the Israelites as a justification for modern Israel's actions?
And I'm not saying that a state founded as a Christian state would be wrong to ban same-sex marriage. Or divorce. Or pre-marital sex. Or blasphemy. Knock yourself out. Israel is a Jewish state. One founded on the opposite of the establishment clause.
When Christians attempt to change the US into a Christian state, it's wrong. It's essentially an attempted coup d'etat. If Jews were to attempt it, it would be wrong. When Muslims get around to trying it, it'll also be wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When Christians attempt to change the US into a Christian state, it's wrong. It's essentially an attempted coup d'etat.
In the case of this amendment, it's an attempt to use the already-agreed-upon procedures for changing the foundational structure of our government.
Doesn't sound like a coup d'etat to me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's no different than a Constitutional Amendment declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the United States, Dag. Different in details, but no different in principle. That, too, would be an attempt to use the already-agreed-upon procedures for changing the foundational structure of our government. But it would most definitely be a de facto coup d'etat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know if you'd consider it a semantic argument or not, but it wouldn't be a coup d'etat. Coups generally either mean a sudden or unexpected change in government through violent means, or a beheading of the government through unconstitutional means.
If proponents of a Pro-Christian America went through the constitutional process of changing the country into whatever it was that they wanted it wouldnt be a coup, I guess you'd call it a revolution, albeit one of the more peaceful in history, assuming no one stood up to them with armed resistance (which I'd find hard to believe).
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: sL: correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I recall you using God's promises to the Israelites as a justification for modern Israel's actions?
quote: The issue is when you insist on forcing others to live by your personal religious morality.
I haven't seen anybody try to do that in this thread. Not recognizing SSM is not forcing others to obey any religious tenant.
I get that you think this is the case. But I think you're mistaken.
The state redistributes money to married couples. By doing so for opposite-sex marriages and not for same-sex marriages, it is engaging in punitive activity against same-sex couples. I mean, where do you think those benefits from from in the first place?
As Dag pointed out earlier, the fact that the government redistributes money to certain groups does not mean that it is engaging in punative action against people not included in that group. Otherwise, I want my welfare benefits, and free education, and the right to fish without a license dang it!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
Actually, it was founded on the ideal of the majority on every issue dictating its impact to the minority. Such is democracy, and provided the majority doesn't want something unconstitutional, there's not much you can do about it, short of moving.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Are you going to answer my question about God's promises to Israel?
I actually didn't see that line when I first replied. Then I did, and I replied again to answer it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
There's one good side to this whole amendment nonsense. It's basically establishing that banning same-sex marriage really does require a constitutional amendment. It's just that outrageous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There's one good side to this whole amendment nonsense. It's basically establishing that banning same-sex marriage really does require a constitutional amendment. It's just that outrageous.
Not really. In 49 out of 50 states, it required nothing, because it isn't allowed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
Actually, it was founded on the ideal of the majority on every issue dictating its impact to the minority. Such is democracy, and provided the majority doesn't want something unconstitutional, there's not much you can do about it, short of moving.
Well, that may be what has happened, but it certainly wasn't what the Framers had in mind. Majority rule with respect for minority rights., Not majority rule and the minority just has to deal with it. Why do you think they all left Europe in the first place?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why do you think they all left Europe in the first place?
To make money. To set up governments with religious strictures of their own choosing. To be left alone. To exploit convicts to make money.
Not because they didn't like majority rule, since there effectively wasn't majority rule.
Plus to be able to own land, something almost impossible in much of Europe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Actually, it was founded on the ideal of the majority on every issue dictating its impact to the minority.
No. In fact, the Founders went to some lengths to prevent this sort of raw democracy. It's only when the majority feels threatened for some stupid reason that they are able to overturn the protections our system grants to minorities.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually the constitution is set up as a limit for majority rule. Everything about it is safegaurds. It wasn't called the Grand Experiment for nothing. No one was sure it was going to work.
So Dag and Lyr, you're both right to a certain extent. Our ancestors Came here to own land and to escape religious persecution. (And of course, some of our ancestors were already here, but that's another side of the family.) But when they made the constitution, they didn't know what was going to happen. They had to protect the minority (of land owners) from the majority (of land owners) should the majority go whacky.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
(directed at Dag)
The reasons you listed are valid. Just as valid as mine. If you think they left for the expressed purpose of making money and happily hoping to oppress a minority once they constituted the majority, I'd ask as to where you read that.
Many left because they didn't like the government intrusion into religion, others for money, for land, to escape oppressive governments and the oppresive wealthy. And many left to create new colonies with new laws, to start over, and not live under the yoke of their own restrictive governments. That includes a certain respect for minorities. Catholics aside, it's how many of the colonies were run.
Regardless though, this argument won't go anywhere. You can easily refute what I'm saying, and I'll easily be able to hit you right back, beause there was no ONE reason for why EVERYONE came over here. Everyone had their own reasons, each colony was different, each colonist was different, and the conditions of their home countries was different. I never meant to imply otherwise.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BTW, out of curiosity, is there anything else in the world (that's controversial, anyway) that Tom, Dag, StarLisa and Me all agree on?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Whatever the intent was with respect to majority rule, there's no question that the Founders intended 2/3 of Congress, 2/3 of the Senate, and 3/4 of the state legislatures to be able to change the Constitution.
Further, leaving out the part where he talks about the majority not being able to do something unconstitutional isn't very accurate quoting in this context.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who is the "he" in that post?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (directed at Dag)
The reasons you listed are valid. Just as valid as mine. If you think they left for the expressed purpose of making money and happily hoping to oppress a minority once they constituted the majority, I'd ask as to where you read that.
Many left because they didn't like the government intrusion into religion, others for money, for land, to escape oppressive governments and the oppresive wealthy. And many left to create new colonies with new laws, to start over, and not live under the yoke of their own restrictive governments. That includes a certain respect for minorities. Catholics aside, it's how many of the colonies were run.
Regardless though, this argument won't go anywhere. You can easily refute what I'm saying, and I'll easily be able to hit you right back, beause there was no ONE reason for why EVERYONE came over here. Everyone had their own reasons, each colony was different, each colonist was different, and the conditions of their home countries was different. I never meant to imply otherwise.
I'm trying to figure out what I did to deserve an eyeroll there. You asked a question. I answered. I think it's clear from what I posted that there's not one reason why everyone came over here. That was my point, in fact.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who is the "he" in that post?
El JT de Spang.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I'm trying to figure out what I did to deserve an eyeroll there. You asked a question. I answered. I think it's clear from what I posted that there's not one reason why everyone came over here. That was my point, in fact.
I was annoyed. May not have been necessary, and I thus apologize. I should have said "Why do you think many of them left in the first place?"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who is the "he" in that post?
El JT de Spang.
I like to imagine Dag's reply being spoken in a heavily stilted, sarcastic, and stentorian Spanish accent, for some reason.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, Lyrhawn.
Tom, that says more about JT's name than me, I think.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Well, it looks like this discussion is moving way too fast for me to keep up during this week of 10-12 hour work days. In any case, my portion of the debate appears to have lapped itself. As much as I'd love to answer the questions raised by my last post, I don't want to wear out my "ctrl" and "v" keys. So I think I'm going to check out some other portions of the board in the few minutes I have here today. It's been fun, though. Cheers, all. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:It's only when the majority feels threatened for some stupid reason that they are able to overturn the protections our system grants to minorities.
When doesn't the majority feel threatened? Even when they're convinced they're acting in everyone's best interests you can bet that there are people who disagree, and want things their way instead.
And I'll thank you all to leave my good name out of this.
Well, my name, anyway.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There's one good side to this whole amendment nonsense. It's basically establishing that banning same-sex marriage really does require a constitutional amendment. It's just that outrageous.
Not really. In 49 out of 50 states, it required nothing, because it isn't allowed.
And those bans may just go away now due to the message that a ban really requires a constitutional amendment. You can't have it both ways. If 49 out of 50 states are doing just fine, a constitutional amendment is lunacy.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hopefully by this fall it will be 48 out of 50. MD has to pass a ban or start allowing SSM, if I'm not mistaken.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When doesn't the majority feel threatened?
Seriously? If you're serious about that question, and not merely asking rhetorically, I have a theory for you based on the dangers of federalism.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And those bans may just go away now due to the message that a ban really requires a constitutional amendment. You can't have it both ways. If 49 out of 50 states are doing just fine, a constitutional amendment is lunacy.
Huh?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The latter, but I'd still like to hear the theory.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The majority doesn't feel threatened when it perceives that even if its interests are not always protected in law, they tend to persist in society.
Two things harsh this mellow:
1) Deliberate use of divisive issues, particularly ones that require constitutional protection of minorities.
2) Excessive federal power that ultimately attempts to codify ALL societal interests in law -- creating the assumption that if something does NOT exist in law, society does not recognize or support it -- and migrating all issues to the national stage for debate, thus pitting regions against other regions in an attempt to use law to sandpaper away their philosophical differences.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
SenojRetep
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ...morality is not for the government to decide. ...remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
I utterly reject this premise. I believe every law is moral at its base. Saying my religious views cannot inform how I approach an issue is exactly equivalent (IMO) to me stating that your (presumably non-religious) sense of right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical should not affect your vote. Your morality informs how you vote; why should I be denied equal priviledge, simply on the basis that my morality is (primarily) religiously derived? You have values, I have values, they conflict; to me, adjudicating that conflict is exactly what the legislative and democratic process is all about.
Excellent point, too bad you either didn't read EXACTLY what I said or you didn't understand it.
"...morality is not for the government to decide."
No, it's not for the government to decide. People in their individual faiths, personal ethics, and personal beliefs determine morality. Governemnt decides law. There are many things that are against the law that are not truly immoral, and there are many things that are immoral that are not against the law. One does not DICTATE the other.
However, one does influence the other. There are generally accepted moral concepts that are universal across all modern societies regardless of the presences or absents of religious beliefs. Even if religion did not exist, it would still be against the law to murder, assault, and rob people. Generally, you are free to live your life as long as it does not in someway harm other people. I fall back on the old saying, 'your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins'.
"...remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not DICTATE law in the USA."
No your religious BELEIFS do not DICTATE Law. You are certainly free to express your moral view on the public stage and in public forums, you are certainly free to try and influence legislators to your way of thinking, but you have to accept that you don't always get your way.
The Moral Majority, is really the loudest, most vocal, and most influential minority. They would love to force their views on everyone, but when it comes to civil rights, I don't think the true majority of citizens are willing to deny rights because of the beliefs of a very vocal minority.
It is very possible that the Native Americans have a completely different view of gay people than Christian Fundamentalists. It is very possible that the Buddhist, Shinto, and Confuciusists have a completely different view. It is very possible that the general secular society doesn't agree with the extremest view of the Religious Right. How can you justify forcing your views on them?
Well, maybe you can justify it, but, once again, you have to accept that you don't always get your way.
Any position, no matter how extreme, illogical, or unlikely can be made to sound palatable, if you can whip up enough hysterical frenzy of rhetoric and moral posturing. But that is precisely why we don't allow these things to be decided by popular vote. That is why the requirements to enact a Constitutional Ammendment are relatively strict. That is done to assure that every hairbrained idea with a sweet talking backer doesn't get enshrined in the Constitution.
Think I'm wrong? Look at these ideas the societies readily bought into-
Hitler convinced his people that every ill was the fault of the Jews, and the perfect solution was to kill them all.
Become a Christian or we will kill you. Very popular during the Crusades.
Become a Muslim or we will kill you. Growing in popularity today.
Let's institude a complete ban on alcohol in this country. Certainly got enough people to back that Ammendment, but it didn't work out to well did it? In fact it created one of the most lawless times in modern history.
Shall I go on???
Our system of government is filled with checks and balances to make sure that popular fervor, and momentary tends do not become law or alter our fundamental framework of Liberty.
Several state in the USA have tried to make Same Sex Marriage legal, and several modern world countries have made it legal or are considering making it legal. That alone tells you that this is not an absolute issue. It is not cut and dried. It is not crystal clear in the view of broader society. In your individual mind, perhaps yes, but as a broad social issue, it is clearly not sufficiently decided to warant a Constitutional Ammendment.
This issue must be decided with clear unemotional minds and without prejudice, bias, or agenda. It must be decided in the cold light of pure law and civil rights.
As I said before, many of these things are merely 'vote getting' issues. I was listening to a politician tonight on TV and it was clear that everything he said was calculated to get votes. When being for gay rights got him votes, he was for it. When being against it got him more vote, then he was against it. Every issue he spoke on was a topical hot button issue guaranteed to get the conservative vote. Fortunately, this guys motivations were painfully transparent, and only the most stupid and gullible were buying his act.
The Defense of Marriage Act and the Defining of Marriage Ammendment to the Constitution are just political ploys by members of Congress who are trying to please a very vocal and influential segment of the population, and they are doing it knowing that it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of passing.
Back on point; while I found your response somewhat reasoned in general, it simply didn't address to what I ACTUALLY said.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just a little nitpicking, maybe it's the history major in me, but...
quote:Become a Christian or we will kill you. Very popular during the Crusades.
Become a Muslim or we will kill you. Growing in popularity today.
That's not what the Crusades were about. Granted, Jews were killed (and many of those that did it were punished/excommunicated I might add, back when that actually meant something), and Muslims were killed, it wasn't because they weren't Christian (at least, that wasn't the organizational drive). The point was multifaceted. For the Pope to assert some power and control, for Western Europe to save what was left of the Eastern Roman Empire, to retake the Holy Land and (in the case of the reconquista in Spain, to retake the Iberian Peninsula), and in general to get a bunch of thugs with too much time on their hands out of Europe (idle hands are the devil's playthings). It was NOT a series of wars for the sake of conversion. Now, if you want to use the Spanish Inquisition as your example, I think you'd be on better footing.
As for Muslims and today. I think it's much the same story. The radical Muslim agenda is not to convert America and Israel, and others, into Muslims, it's eradication, or the forcing of those groups under the yoke of sharia (or something else) law.
Just a minor point, now, back to your arguing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Karl asked me a question a couple of pages back, about what I would have done about the de facto families that many gay couples have formed. I think that I do support the formation of civil unions for the purpose of rearing children. These wouldn't have to be gay couples even, but could be cooperative arrangement such as the two widowed sisters I mentioned earlier. I believe the IRS has a designation of "head of household". I was never quite sure what it was for. While there is great demand for healthy newborns, there is a crisis supply of foster children and sibling groups who need homes. I can think of many singles who would love a family but lack the skills necessary to have a traditional marriage.
I'd like to apologize if I've hurt anyone's feelings in this thread. Maybe I shouldn't have started it. But I has been good to interact with folks again. In the end, the heart of my belief is a religious one. The concept in Children of the Mind presents itself, that we choose to do things on a subrational level, and come up with reasons and rationales after. My opinions come from that place. I can accept that others do as well. I think that place can only be changed through yielding one's will freely. I am at peace with whatever happens.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
For the record, I'm not offended in the least by polite rational discussion of SSM. I'm not offended that people hold a different opinion than I do on the subject, even if it is a more personal issue to me than to most on this board.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Excellent point, too bad you either didn't read EXACTLY what I said or you didn't understand it...while I found your response somewhat reasoned in general, it simply didn't address to what I ACTUALLY said.
I suppose you are too subtle for me.
What I found disconcerting about your position was your claim that "religious beliefs can not and should not dictate law in the USA." I thought you meant that religious beliefs should not form the basis of how someone votes on a particular issue. Is that in fact what you meant? Do you believe that I can base my vote on religious principles and still be a good citizen?
quote:There are generally accepted moral concepts that are universal across all modern societies regardless of the presences or absents of religious beliefs.
I don't think this is true. We have tried on this board at least twice to compile a list of generally accepted moral concepts and failed. And we're a fairly uniform population, compared to "all modern societies." Try the experiment yourself, or refer to this thread.
quote:This issue must be decided with clear unemotional minds and without prejudice, bias, or agenda. It must be decided in the cold light of pure law and civil rights.
What counts as prejudice, bias, or agenda and what doesn't? I'm not sure what you consider "the cold light of pure law and civil rights." Can you give an example of reasoning about this from such a stance?
quote:Several state in the USA have tried to make Same Sex Marriage legal, and several modern world countries have made it legal or are considering making it legal. That alone tells you that this is not an absolute issue. It is not cut and dried. It is not crystal clear in the view of broader society. In your individual mind, perhaps yes, but as a broad social issue, it is clearly not sufficiently decided to warant a Constitutional Ammendment.
I don't believe an issue needs to be crystal clear in the view of broader society to warrant a constitutional amendment. The basic freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights certainly weren't crystal clear to broader society when they were enacted. In fact, I'd say they still aren't today. However I believe they waranted a constitutional amendment, and luckily so did (at least) 2/3 of the federal legislature and 3/4 of the states. I think that and only that is the test of whether something warrants an amendment; if it can generate sufficient interest and support to be enacted.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:In the end, the heart of my belief is a religious one. The concept in Children of the Mind presents itself, that we choose to do things on a subrational level, and come up with reasons and rationales after. My opinions come from that place.
And this is what saddens me most about this argument, that it appears to be based so heavily on these "subrational" beliefs.
One of the strongest memories I hold from my wedding day was the moment I looked at my bridesmaids getting ready to proceed down the aisle, and realized that, for one of them, a day like this may never come. She's got a wonderful partner, and together they're a normal happy couple, with the same joys and frustrations my husband and I face, with one glaring exception: for some "subrational" reason, a whole heck of a lot of people think it's a good idea to legally declare that their bond is inherently inferior to that between a real, married couple.
Rationally, it just doesn't make sense.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the government should not be in the business of issuing sacraments or deciding what and what isn't sacramental.
I don't think that churchs should be in the business of endorsing legal contracts.
The problem is that marriage is both of these things and I think that they need to be separated. Let the government issue licenses for civil unions - for both hetero and homosexual unions equally. Let churches choose to bless whatever unions that church deems sacramental. I fondly (but entirely unrealisitcally) hope that someday that my church will bless homosexual unions. I hope for it, and will work for it, but I don't expect it any time soon.
One point that hasn't been widely addressed although it has been mentioned is that marriage as it is now has not always been what it is today. Marriage has been redefined before. One doesn't have to go back very far to find marriage defined as a contract between a man and a woman's father (or other male guardian). It was basically a sale of chattel. It has been "redefined" since then.
And have I mentioned how much I adore Dan Raven?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I wonder if there is a religious arguement in favor of SSM? I mean, there are a lot of gay marriages performed by clergy these days. If they believe that God blesses their union and wants them to be together as a married couple, and their clergy agrees, then doesn't that arguement hold at least as much weight as religious arguements against SSM?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
SenojRetep
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: Excellent point, too bad you either didn't read EXACTLY what I said or you didn't understand it...while I found your response somewhat reasoned in general, it simply didn't address to what I ACTUALLY said.
Just a minor point at this stage. When I made my statement, I chose my words carefully. When I restated it in the post you are responding to, I emphasized the keyword by making it all capitals.
In short, 'religion does not DICTATE law'. Note that in the paragraph following this in my post above, I acknowledged that beliefs INFLUENCE law. I futher concluded by saying -
You are certainly free to express your moral view on the public stage and in public forums, you are certainly free to try and influence legislators to your way of thinking, but you have to accept that you don't always get your way.
I don't see how that could not be clear.
Oh, and thanks for the Link to the thread on Universal Moral Concepts. That sound interesting and I definitely will read it.
quote:This issue must be decided with clear unemotional minds and without prejudice, bias, or agenda. It must be decided in the cold light of pure law and civil rights.
What counts as prejudice, bias, or agenda and what doesn't? I'm not sure what you consider "the cold light of pure law and civil rights." Can you give an example of reasoning about this from such a stance?
That is an extremely difficult question, and one of the hardest things to do. It is next to impossible to divorce yourself from your personal feelings on an issue, but that is exactly what members of the Supreme Court (as an example) must do. They must set aside their personal opinions on abortion, flag burning, black voter rights, and gay marriage, and consider the issue in the cold light of law.
There was a time when many and various laws that inhibited black rights in America were on the books. There was a time in the south when a college educated black voter was denied the right to vote because he couldn't pass the 'education' test. Because this was such blatant and corrupted prejudice, it became necessary for a distance and dispassionate government to step in, and override the will of the state.
Yes, in those states the popular opinion was that blacks were too stupid to vote. But of course what it really was, was the white power trying to keep an iron grip on their power. To their passionate minds, the local people thought what they were doing was right, but to the very dispassionate minds of others, the locals were clearly irrational, biased, corrupt, and engaging is something that was clearly illegal no matter how well they manage to disguise it.
This is why we do not allow popular opinion to rule our country. This is why legislators and arbiters of the law must remain uninfluenced by popular opinion, current trends, and by their personal emotions. Of course, that is not completely possible, people are human and flawed, and occassionally a subject is so inflamed that they can't help but be influenced. Further politicians are greatly influenced by what will get them vote, even if the 'thing' is a clear violation of the law and the Constitution. Members of Congress are constantly proposing laws and even occassionally passing them, even though they know the law clearly don't have a hope of standing, because it brings voter support. In a sense, with respect to voters, they have made themself the good guys by passing a false law, and made the Surpreme Court the bad guys for having to strike it down. We just have to hope that in the long run justice prevails over emotion.
We as voters, Congress as our law makers, our president, and the Supreme Court must be very careful to not let personal feelings and the emotions of the moment influence us into allowing any erosion of valid and genuine rights in our country. As soon as we start letting short term fears and emotions rule us, we end up with rulers like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and many others. We must hold firm to the cold dispassionate precepts of justice, liberty, and full and fair civil rights.
Notice that the argument I make works just as well for your side as it does for mine. We should not allow Gay Marriage because it is the poular tend of the day, but neither should we ban it by Constitutional Ammendment when this is clearly not a settled issue. Again, several states in the USA have tried to legalize Civil Unions and many other have considered it. When a subject is so open to debate, when its outcome is so unsettled, that is clearly not the time to make the decision, and certianly NOT the time to enshrine it into the Constitution.
I still say that this action is the Religious Right trying to do an end run around the Law. Because they know they can never get Gay Marriage banned by law, they are trying to do it in the Constitution. That clearly is an agenda that is not compatable with civil rights. That is clearly an effort to restrict civil rights to a group that, in my opinion, shouldn't be denied their right any more that blacks should have been denied the right to vote.
I've already said that States are free to write laws banning gay marraige, but I also think that those law have little chance of standing as valid when challenged. However, you will note that when States have tried to make gay marriage legal, those law were also overturned.
When we as a society have found the truly just and fair thing to do, when it is clear what is truly fair, then we can decide how to proceed. Until then, we debate. We weigh the issues, but for fairness to rule, we must do so based on what is truly just, not on personal agendas, popular opinion, overhyped rhetoric, or religious dogma.
It may be true that in the end, what is truly and dispassionately fair conflicts with your personal beliefs, but like I said, you have to accept that you don't always get your way.
quote:SenojRetep I don't believe an issue needs to be crystal clear in the view of broader society to warrant a constitutional amendment. The basic freedoms outlined in the Bill of Rights certainly weren't crystal clear to broader society when they were enacted. ...
On the first issue, I agree, as others have pointed out, law and interpretation of the law is a compromise, but it does have fairness at its foundation.
On the second issue, I certainly can't agree. While I admit the founding Fathers were not aware of the long range impact of what they were doing, the certianly understood the Bill of Right with crystal clarity in the moment.
The Bill of Rights is a boiler plate for how to oppress and control citizens, and that is exactly what the founding Fathers were trying to prevent. In a sense, by creating the Bill of Rights, they created a fouth branch of government; the People. I think the Bill of Rights was added something like 15 years after the Constitution was ratified. Despite having created a government that had clear and solid checks and balances built into it, they still felt something was missing.
By adding the Bill of Rights, they assured the the government would alway be suject to the people, and that, more importantly, the government would never have the power to subjugate the people.
In a sense, we are the only country that has the right of subversion and revolution built into its founding documents. We have the right to maintain standing citizen armies that are free of the will and control of the government. We have the right to gather freely and speak out against the goverment. We have the right to be secure in our privacy and in our property. We have the right to oppose our govenment 'by any means necessary' to uphold and enforce the founding documents and principles upon which our country was created. BUT only for that purpose. We can't 'revolution' on a whim, or for any reason other than to bring our government back in line with the Documents that are that the heart of our Democracy. "Power to the People."
I'm adding an additional note to what I said above. Revolutions and Subversion are our acts of LAST RESORT. When all other methods have failed, and all other course of action have been expended, then we have the 'right' to bring our citizen armies against our own government which is exactly why we have the right to keep and bear arms and to maintian a militia.
I emphasize once again that 'revolution' can never be to seize power and control for personal gain or to bring into effect a new form of government. It can only be done to bring the government back in line with the founding principles that are at the heart of our Democracy and to assure the continued liberty of our collective citizens, and to assure the continuation of our government as orginally difined in the Constitution. Just wanted to make that clear.
Back on point...
The fact the some states want gay marriage and others do not. That fact that the nature of gay marriage with respect to Law is so unclear, tells me that this is far from a resolved issue, and because it is not a clearly resolved issue, it absolutely should not and will not become part of the Constitution.
Adding a second note: What is clearly immoral is not necessarily illegal, and that which is illegal is not necessarily immoral. Yes, without a doubt, there is an overlap between morality and law, but one does not DICTATE the other. Just wanted to make sure that point was clear.
When it is finally resolved, it will be resolved as a matter of cold dispassionate Law, and not a matter of institutional dogma, personal beliefs, or inflamed emotions; because that is the only way to determine what it truly fair and just.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
[ June 06, 2006, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: BlueWizard ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I wonder if there is a religious arguement in favor of SSM? I mean, there are a lot of gay marriages performed by clergy these days. If they believe that God blesses their union and wants them to be together as a married couple, and their clergy agrees, then doesn't that arguement hold at least as much weight as religious arguements against SSM?
I think that the religious argument - at least my religious argument - in favor of SSM is general rather than specific. That God is in favor of justice and that equal rights are part of that. That love is good and we should bless and celebrate it wherever it is found.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Just for the record, Wikipedia seems to have a fairly accurate and unbiased account of the 'Federal Marriage Amendment'.
2004 Version (H.J. Res. 106 (108th Congress 2004) and S.J. Res. 40 (108th Congress 2004)):
1. Marriage in the United States of America shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. 2. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
I thought it might help if we all knew what we were talking about. Wikipedia does a reasonable good job of analysing the legal implications of this Amendment.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Maybe the problem is that I don't see "Marriage" floating about as a platonic ideal amd rather as a social custom tied to the people and culture it occurs within. As such, I don't see how "Marriage" as itself can be damaged, separate from having materially bad things occur.
As a social custom, marriage has gone through myriad changes. And thank goodness for that. Even the idea that many people are advancing here, that a primary purpose of marriage is for the two parents to see to the welfare of their children appears to be a relatively recent addition. Historically, marriage customs and laws seemed to have been much more centered around the idea of property (often with the wife and children being, in many ways, treated as such).
But times change and social maturation and economic prosperity have made a whole world of possibilities and permutations available. We no longer, for example, send children (or at least our own children) out to Dickensian workshops.
America has been blessed with a degree of affluence and thus potential than any other nation in history. And yet we are, in many ways, a fundemantall sick society.
Consider in this case, those populations who are loudest in the "Support of Marriage" camp are those that have rates of divorce significantly higher than the average populace. And, to me at least, there's little suprise in that.
"The fundamental purpose of marriage is for having children." That's a heck of a recruiting slogan. Seems more than a little incomplete to me. Consider the terribly bleak view OSC gives in his infamous essay. People naturally don't want to be married and need to be tricked/coerced/forced into it? Yick. That's an attack on marriage if ever I read one.
It reminds me of the "Close your eyes and do it for England." that came out of insisting that "The fundamental purpose of sex is for creating children." You're turning these amazing things into drudgery, into burdens, with the way you define them.
Marriage, done correctly, is a wonderful thing. I know, I've seen it done well. I'm seeing it done well.
I have a friend who was in my programming major in college. We got to know each other very well and, when time came for us to work together, we formed a partnership that was much more effective (and fun) than us working separately. We knew each other see, and were committed to what we were doing. We knew where one of us was weak or the paths that they'd likely go down. We could delegate so that one person was working on the wider concept while the other was coding away on specific tasks. With our different backgrounds and approaches, we taught each other, encouraged each other to stretch his way of seeing things, and often combined our styles into something with many of the individual strengths and few of the weakenesses. We could provide each other with advice, or someone to talk ideas over with, someone to press you on and revitalize you when your energy was flagging, or someone to just mess around with. It is wonderful to have someone who gets you and is there looking out for you.
Good marriages, at least the ones I've seen, are like that times 100. My friend I'm talking about is married now, and though we're close, his relationship with his wife has a much greater level of bonding and intimacy than our friendship ever will. Without each other, not only would they be different (and I believe poorer) people, but they wouldn't be able to have accomplished all that they have.
Marriage, done right, is good for you. It gives you all these things that even (or perhaps especially) the very selfish want for themselves. It's one of life's wonderful ironies that they way to get all these things is to in large part give up selfishness. Going along with this is another one of the wonderful things about life. A loving marriage is perhaps the best and most immediate way of people getting rewarded by giving up their selfishness as well as defending against the stress and seemingly hostile world that usually give rise to selfishness.
If that were all that it was, I still think marriage would be a wonderful thing that we should spread around to as many people who could responsibly enter into it. But there's so much more to it than that. Good marriages also have a ton of benefits in a wider context. They promote social and economic stability. And, yes, they provide a good environment for raising children.
(Aside: Let's visit that. Again, I don't have a platonic ideal as to what "raising children" is supposed to mean, so I'm stuck with relying on materially observable criteria to judge when it's right and wrong. So far, studies of the mental and physical well-being of children of gay parents have, despite the near constant assertions by the anti-gay crowd, shown that they are not disadvantaged compared to the children of straight parents.)
Marriage is a bad shape in our country and no mistake. However, it seems to me that it is so because the definitions people use are so poor. From my perspective, pushing the "fundamentally for procreation" line hurts marriage. I'd suggest that we definitely need to redefine marriage into something more like what I was talking about. However, I can't see how people could justify denying it to gay people.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think there's an even stronger religious argument to be made in favor of same sex marriage.
For Christians, it also requires a bit of further digging into the few mentions of homosexuality in the Bible to examine those and draw some conclusions first. I think we've had these discussions before, how there's a new testament that doesn't supplant the old, but does make the lists of abominations no longer binding on us (like prohibitions against eating shellfish, the prohibition against homosexual activity as stated in the OT is not an active thing in our religion).
Then, there's the NT references that have to looked at. Here's one summary: Not an original source
If ones conscience and faith allow those kinds of conclusions regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality -- i.e., concluding that it's not something that Christians need to concern themselves with vis a vis "sin"...THEN...
it's worth exploring what the Bible says about love and marriage as it applies to people in general. And we can ask what Jesus would do about committed relationships between two people (whoever they might be) -- remember, this presupposes that is for Chrisitians who have already concluded that the NT isn't calling homosexuality and homosexual committed relationships "sinful."
If you do that, I think it's pretty easy to see that there shouldn't be concern...there should be joy. That it's a wonderful thing when two people join together and are faithful, and loving, and honor God together.
A religious stance on homosexual marriage could, in fact, be the same as a religious stance on any marriage of adult faithful equals.
EMPHASIS:COULD BE... Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't know...I kind of feel that the availability of divorce has improved the average quality of marriages that do survive. I mean, the fact that a woman no longer has to put up with a husband who cheats or doesn't treat her well is a GOOD thing. People should CHOOSE to be together, and in the past, that wasn't always the case. I don't think that marriage is in spectacular shape in our society, but...I don't think it's on a severely downward turn. I don't think our society is just going to suddenly collapse.
Every generation thinks that today, right now (whenever that may be) is the worst age and that things were so much better in the past. That's not always the case.
/tangent.
-pH
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Good tangent, pH.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
quote: BTW, out of curiosity, is there anything else in the world (that's controversial, anyway) that Tom, Dag, StarLisa and Me all agree on?
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read that. That quote is totally fantastic.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Wow, Squick. I hadn't read that OSC article before. It kind of scares me, especially this part:
quote: Why would men submit to rules that deprive them of the chance to satisfy their natural desire to mate with every attractive female?
Why would women submit to rules that keep them from trying to mate with the strongest (richest, most physically imposing, etc.) male, just because he already has a wife?
That seems to do both sexes a terrible disservice. I don't know about men, having never been one, but I personally am not always looking for the richest, most physically imposing male. There's this invention we have called "love"...
I'd like to think that married men are not constantly fighting off the extreme urge to jump every attractive woman's bones.
-pH
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I'd like to think that married men are not constantly fighting off the extreme urge to jump every attractive woman's bones.
Ummmm...yeah...that's totally not us...at all...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, if the imperative is to mate, every female is attractive, especially the ones that are likely to be fertile.
Young-ish women who already have children should cause an unconquerable sexual stimulation in most males.
If you think about it, what the "rules" are really there for is to stop the bloodshed that would result from all these uncontrollably aggressive men competing for access to the most fertile females.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
So, does this mean that recognition of civil unions, which are unions seeking the same legal incidents, would be blocked? If so, there are suddenly lots more reasons to stop this amendment. This is not saying that homosexual people cannot marry but you can pursue other avenues that don't piss people off. This is saying that homosexual people have no recourse whatsoever to any socially recognized relationship together.
I'm of the opinion that gay marriage should be completely dumped as a goal. Not because it's not a worthy one, but because the word "marriage" sets off too many automatic reactions. Instead, I think they should shoot for civil unions everywhere and then make civil unions stronger, better, and more lasting than marriages. Wouldn't it be a kick if divorce rates stayed 50% but the dissolution of civil unions became a rare thing?
Ultimately all unions would become civil unions, with people interested going to their church to make it a marriage.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Ummmm...yeah...that's totally not us...at all...
Seriously? My libido's probably a fair bit above average, but I certainly don't find myself actually fighting any urges. That's not to say I'm not relatively frequently mentally drooling over a cute waiter or delivery guy, but in my experience, if common decency and honesty can't keep a guy faithful to his significant other, a piece of paper isn't going to do it either.
[ June 07, 2006, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:So, does this mean that recognition of civil unions, which are unions seeking the same legal incidents, would be blocked? If so, there are suddenly lots more reasons to stop this amendment. This is not saying that homosexual people cannot marry but you can pursue other avenues that don't piss people off. This is saying that homosexual people have no recourse whatsoever to any socially recognized relationship together.
Not quite. What this attempts to do is to protect those states that already have amendments forbidding gay marriage and civil unions from having those overturned when/if they are challenged by a civil union formed in another state. It also means that no judge can declare an ambiguously worded State constitution to require that state to allow civil unions, since the federal amendment explicitly forbids that interpretation. Effectively this amendment is meant to end all court action in the matter and allow civil unions only in such states where the popular vote demands them.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We're safe for another 2 years when they use it to drub up support for republicans in 2008.
Pix
(edit: Yahoo provided a better URL)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Do you have a link to the voting record? The Senate site hasn't updated yet. I'm almost certain that my Senators did the right thing, but I want to check.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Just what I saw on Yahoo.
I was reading the story about the vote was going to happen and at the bottom there was a link that said "Senate Rejects Gay Marriage Amendment (1 minute ago)"
So it's pretty hot off the presses.
I'd love to see who voted for and against too, though it will depress me, I'm sure...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm pretty confident in my Senators (Illinois). Remind me where you are?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm pretty confident in my Senators (Illinois). Remind me where you are?
Unless organized crime decided to back the ammendment.... Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm pretty sure Arlen Specter didn't vote for it. I'm also pretty sure that Rick Santorum is currently wearing a t-shirt saying "I voted for the anti-Gay Marriage Ammendment." or possibly "Just say no to hot man on dog action."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
California. I'm sure my senators voted against it. What would depress me would be seeing the names of people I agree with on so many other things voting in favor of this thing(*).
Pix
(*) Originally I wrote "Abomination" but I don't want to add another 10 pages to this thread to explain why I called it that when you can prolly figure it out from what I wrote already.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Squick: Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Not a full voting list, but enough info to figure out how your senators voted (assuming you know which party they are):
quote: Seven Republicans, many from New England, voted to kill the amendment. They were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
Two Democrats voted for the amendment: Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Robert Byrd of West Virginia.
Three senators did not vote: Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and John Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.
--Enigmatic
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh wow, just when I thought I couldn't hate Klansman Robert Byrd any more than I already did.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Enigmatic. The Senate web site says it "refreshes" every 20 minutes. Ha.
BQT, not sure what you mean.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Never mind, a poor attempt at humor.
If I have to try to explain Illinois historical tie of crime to politics, it just isn't funny. Sorry.
[ June 07, 2006, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: BaoQingTian ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
So, does this mean that recognition of civil unions, which are unions seeking the same legal incidents, would be blocked? If so, there are suddenly lots more reasons to stop this amendment. This is not saying that homosexual people cannot marry but you can pursue other avenues that don't piss people off. This is saying that homosexual people have no recourse whatsoever to any socially recognized relationship together.
I'm of the opinion that gay marriage should be completely dumped as a goal. Not because it's not a worthy one, but because the word "marriage" sets off too many automatic reactions. Instead, I think they should shoot for civil unions everywhere and then make civil unions stronger, better, and more lasting than marriages. Wouldn't it be a kick if divorce rates stayed 50% but the dissolution of civil unions became a rare thing?
Ultimately all unions would become civil unions, with people interested going to their church to make it a marriage.
Until the federal government treats civil unions and marriages equally, they aren't equal. Until Havah and I can file jointly, civil unions are a joke.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BQT: I thought it was funny.
Whenever there is no reaction to a post I make that is hysterically funny (to me anyway) I like to assume there's someone who laughed but didn't know how to respond. =)
Pix
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Seven Republicans, many from New England, voted to kill the amendment. They were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
I'm quite a ways into the "liberal" end of the spectrum, but have always liked and respected John McCain. I'm really glad he voted how he did, or I may not have been able to hold that position any longer.
I wonder how it will affect his future with his party, however. Not that the GOP would ever have let him be their candidate anyway.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry, BQT, I didn't go back far enough in history to get it. I thought you were refering to Senators Durbin and Obama specifically.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Thanks Pix. Lots of time though I think my funny can hurt other people's feelings. I don't intend it that way, but I'll read it later and realize it could be taken another way. I hope it wasn't taken as me suggesting that her current Senators are corrupt. If so, I apologize Kate.
Edit: Ahah...suspicions confirmed. Sorry about that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No apology necessary, BQT. I'm just a bit slow today.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Xavier -
Exactly. It'd be cool if he got the nomination, but he never will. If he had voted Yes on the measure it would have really helped him. He needs to do some serious pandering to the far right of the party, and he's flatly refusing (for the most part) to do it.
It raises the level of respect for him through the roof in my opinion, but makes his electability as a Republican plummet to the basement.
This is the type of issue that Rick Santorum and Bill Frist are reveling in. They don't care that they lost. They just care that they got to vote for it, and everyone that didn't is a potential target when they start to campaign. And they also know they have a nice card to play against McCain in the primaries.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
One of the headlines from Fark.com was more accurate than the legitimate ones I've seen:
"Senate blocks gay marriage ban amendment. Gays, Democrats, and Republicans all claim victory"
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: One of the headlines from Fark.com was more accurate than the legitimate ones I've seen:
"Senate blocks gay marriage ban amendment. Gays, Democrats, and Republicans all claim victory"
LMAO!!!
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Quotes from Senators:
"We're making progress, and we're not going to stop until marriage between a man and a woman is protected," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas.
Thats right people, not only do gays want to marry, but they want to end straight marriages.
"We have 45 states that have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman," Brownback said. "Since the last time we voted in the Senate, we've seen a total of 14 states take this issue up on the ballot -- on the ballot -- and you've got another seven set for this fall."
The other 5 states are obviously just not American.
"We were hoping to get over 50 percent, but that didn't happen today," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La., one of the amendment's supporters. "Eventually, Congress is going to have to catch up to the wisdom of the American people or the American people will change Congress for the better."
Wisdom of the American people? The same American people that once supported slavery, segregation, and not allowing women to vote?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
quote: Seven Republicans, many from New England, voted to kill the amendment. They were Sens. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and John Sununu of New Hampshire.
Additional info from the Post:
quote:Two Republicans changed their votes from yes in 2004 to no this time: Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Wisdom of the American people? The same American people that once supported slavery, segregation, and not allowing women to vote?
I'm pretty sure it would mostly have to be different people. I doubt there are many people who supported those things still around Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm sure some of the people who supported segregation are still around. Desegregation is fairly recent.
-pH
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
One of them, Robert Byrd, is still in the senate voting against gay marriage.
He says his greatest regret is voting against the 1964 civil rights act... Well he had a chance to make up for it, at least in part, and instead shook the devil's hand(*) one more time.
Pix
(*) "Can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding" -- Your Racist Friend by They Might Be Giants
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
(directed at Dag)![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)