quote: The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the state's constitution gives gay and lesbian couples all the rights of married heterosexual couples.
But the court left it to the state legislature to decide what to call the relationship.
It gave lawmakers 180 days to either include gay and lesbian couples in the state's existing marriage laws or grant those rights under the title civil unions.
quote: In its 4-3 ruling, the New Jersey court said, "The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."
Lawyers for the seven New Jersey gay and lesbian couples in the case had argued that the New Jersey Constitution's guarantee of liberty and equality allows them to marry.
The plaintiffs' lawyers said that for gay and lesbian couples to have true equality the institution must bear the same name.
quote: They worry that gay couples from around the country will come to the state, create unions and go back and challenge their home state laws.
"This is a repeat of what happened in Vermont," said Matt Daniels of Alliance for Marriage, which supports a federal constitutional amendment barring marriages between people of the same sex.
"They took the future of marriage out of the hands of the people of New Jersey. They are holding a gun to the head of the legislature of New Jersey and saying pick between two bullets -- one that allows civil unions and one that allows marriage."
47 more to go!
I hope they do get married there then go home and try to challenge the state laws there. I also hope that the legislature makes the same decision Vermont did and they choose to call it a civil union.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: "The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people."
I've been saying for years that religious people who wanted to protect the sanctity of the traditional marriage, needed to get behind civil unions.
The rights issue is very compelling to most people who knows a non-traditional family. Unless the issues are separated, the people who support the value of traditional marriage will loose.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
What I would love to see (and I realize this would turn a lot of legal precedent on its head) would be civil unions for all couples which are performed in courthouses, by a judge, and guarantee tax stuff, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.: The governmental equal rights. This would be for same sex and heterosexual couples.
Then, I would like to see marriage be a religious thing - so if the Unitarians are ok with same sex marriages, cool, but if Catholics or Mormons are not okay with it, alright, etc. So ceremonies could be performed or not based on religious beliefs, but everyone would be able to see their partners when they're dying of cancer, get tax benefits, medical, so on. WITHOUT making people who really do object to it for whatever reason feel that it's being crammed down their throats. *shrug* Thoughts?
I just think the rights section of it should be separate from the religious objections or lack there of.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I agree with you Samarkand. If a church, temple, etc doesn't want to marry people, fine. But leave the legal things/rights to the government.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: What I would love to see (and I realize this would turn a lot of legal precedent on its head) would be civil unions for all couples which are performed in courthouses, by a judge, and guarantee tax stuff, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.: The governmental equal rights. This would be for same sex and heterosexual couples.
Then, I would like to see marriage be a religious thing - so if the Unitarians are ok with same sex marriages, cool, but if Catholics or Mormons are not okay with it, alright, etc. So ceremonies could be performed or not based on religious beliefs, but everyone would be able to see their partners when they're dying of cancer, get tax benefits, medical, so on. WITHOUT making people who really do object to it for whatever reason feel that it's being crammed down their throats. *shrug* Thoughts?
I just think the rights section of it should be separate from the religious objections or lack there of.
This is what I've been arguing for since the mid 1990s. It doesn't seem to be gaining much ground, but to me it is the only just and ethical approach.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
This is good. I'm glad the court is giving the legislature a choice, maybe that will help this go down smoother for people who oppose gay marriage.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
October says, "Surprise!"
While I'm psyched about the ruling, and happy for the gay folks of New Jersey, I'm suddenly a little worried (well, a little more worried) about those midterm elections. The last thing the Democrats need right now is for gay marriage to become the Big Issue a week and a half before election day.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Next stop, Utah! Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a state issue at the moment, not federal. So long as it stays that way all by itself, and assuming Republicans don't go on a gay bashing tear, I don't think NJ can change the election with less than two weeks to go.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Don't they realize that their society is going to fall apart just like Massachuesetts did? I mean, if the people in NJ don't watch out and keep attacking marriage like this, they might move from the #3 spot, overtake MA and become the state with the lowest divorce rate in the country. Don't they know they should be following the example of states that value marriage like Alabama(44), Tennessee(48), Oklahoma(49), Arkansas(50)?
Considering how gay-friendly Philly has positioned itself as, I bet we're trying to figure out how we can get in on that action. It's too bad that most of the rest of our state(5) is basically Kentucky(40).
[ October 25, 2006, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Well, there has been a noticeable increase in the purchases of butt-less chaps up here. Isn't that on the list of signs of the Apocalypse?
-Bok
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Samarkand - that's exactly what they do in Germany, and I've always thought it a wonderful idea. Couples typically have a civil ceremony the day or two before their church marriage - it's a more casual type of celebration, with close friends and family, then there's a big, formal affair a few days later for everyone.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:The last thing the Democrats need right now is for gay marriage to become the Big Issue a week and a half before election day.
I thought the same thing.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: What I would love to see (and I realize this would turn a lot of legal precedent on its head) would be civil unions for all couples which are performed in courthouses, by a judge, and guarantee tax stuff, power of attorney, custody of children, etc.: The governmental equal rights. This would be for same sex and heterosexual couples.
Then, I would like to see marriage be a religious thing - so if the Unitarians are ok with same sex marriages, cool, but if Catholics or Mormons are not okay with it, alright, etc. So ceremonies could be performed or not based on religious beliefs, but everyone would be able to see their partners when they're dying of cancer, get tax benefits, medical, so on. WITHOUT making people who really do object to it for whatever reason feel that it's being crammed down their throats. *shrug* Thoughts?
I just think the rights section of it should be separate from the religious objections or lack there of.
quote: This is what I've been arguing for since the mid 1990s. It doesn't seem to be gaining much ground, but to me it is the only just and ethical approach.
I hope you're not surprised at the resistance to your ideas, Rabbit. Considering our beliefs about the importance of heterosexual marriage and in light of recent statements by the First Pres/Quorum of the Twelve, I'd think resistance to homosexual marriage/unions by Mormons would be completely logical.
In terms of Mormon theology, there is no option for eternal homosexual unions. In terms of political opposition to it, it's like asking us to support legalization of casino gambling or drugs-- there is cultural and theological inertia that you simply cannot overcome with secular arguments.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, it seems like she is making an argument for edit: legal civil unions....
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yep.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, the argument that civil unions don't equal marriage isn't one that you think holds a lot of water?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No, it doesn't.
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck-- it's a duck. I'm not entirely certain what having two terms for 'marriage' is supposed to do, other than more firmly establish a cultural divide between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have to say that, though I support the use of civil unions by the state, I agree with you about civil unions just being marriage under a different name, but other people seem to put a lot of stock in the fact that the state letting gay people call their unions 'marriage' is what cheapens the institution of marriage rather than the state sanctioning civil unions for gay people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't think the 'institution of marriage' is cheapened by allowing two men to marry.
In Italy, it's expected that men will cheat on their wives. Adultery is frowned upon, but there is a cultural tolerance for it that is unheard of in the US. THAT cheapens marriage.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, o.k.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Sometimes New Jersey rocks.
I have little patience for people who object to gay marriage on religious grounds. For Pete's sake! If you think that gay marriage is a violation of your religious beliefs, then don't do it. If you want me to follow your religious beliefs, then you can try to convert me. But it is not the American Way to make people adhere to your religious tenets.
My two cents. You are, of course, free to disagree. You'd be dead wrong, but that's your choice.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I have little patience for people who object to gay marriage on religious grounds. For Pete's sake! If you think that gay marriage is a violation of your religious beliefs, then don't do it. If you want me to follow your religious beliefs, then you can try to convert me. But it is not the American Way to make people adhere to your religious tenets.
I totally agree! Although I would prefer no one try to convert me, heh.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
They are free to try. They will fail, but I won't tell them they can't try.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I have little patience for people who object to gay marriage on religious grounds.
I have all the patience in the world for people who object to my religious objections. That makes me better than you.
quote:But it is not the American Way to make people adhere to your religious tenets.
I agree.
This is one of those things where my religious beliefs supercede my patriotism, however.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: That makes me better than you.
Sez you!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Only jokingly.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Uh, yeah. Me too.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 47 more to go!
46, actually. Vermont and Connecticut have civil unions, and Massachussetts has marriage.
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
quote:Originally posted by kojabu: I agree with you Samarkand. If a church, temple, etc doesn't want to marry people, fine. But leave the legal things/rights to the government.
Totally. And bravo to NJ for handling this intelligently.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The problem with voting one's faith is that other people have a different faith than you. If you promote the idea that one should codify their faith into law then before long we're living under the tenents of the faith with the most votes. Which isn't that awful right now while we're mostly christian. It only really hurts people like me and people who want to do business on sunday.
But the demographics of this country are changing. Would you be so comfortable with the concept of an islamic majority (for instance) voting their faith? Would you see your wife and daughters in a burka and confined to their home for the sake of another man's faith in Allah?
As for civil unions... I think that's a positive first step, so long as we don't end up with seperate but equal. If all civil marriages are called "civil unions" that's fine. If they're all called Marriage, that's fine. But don't call them two different things and don't require the churches to marry two people they don't want to marry be they gay, interracial, interfaith, what have you.
Pix
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Which isn't that awful right now while we're mostly christian.
'Cause, you know, we Christians are all about love and acceptance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Would you be so comfortable with the concept of an islamic majority (for instance) voting their faith? Would you see your wife and daughters in a burka and confined to their home for the sake of another man's faith in Allah?
Comfortable? No. I'd use whatever civil action available to change the law, the same way homosexuals are doing right now.
Note: I am not aruging against homosexuals' rights to try and change the law.
I don't see how speculative hardship should alter my adherence to what I see as right.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: The point is, why should gay people wear a metaphorical burka for your faith.
This being said, I don't expect to change your mind. I don't even expect to make you think about it.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I don't see how speculative hardship should alter my adherence to what I see as right
Becuase in adhereing to what you see as right, you are causing that hardship to many others. You're hurting people.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*is very quiet*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Someone needs to dobie this thread title before I splode. I would but I'm pretty sure I'm over my quota for threads on the first page.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:why should gay people wear a metaphorical burka for your faith.
Why should I be confederate to defying God's will for the human family?
quote:I don't expect to change your mind. I don't even expect to make you think about it.
What you expect and what actually occurs may be completely different things.
That's the problem with expectations.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: You wouldn't be a confederate to anything. You'd still have the right to try to convert people.
As for what I expect.. Well, there's what you expect and what you Hope for... Just that most of the time, Hope yells "PSYCH!" and then rolls on the floor laughing at you.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
God bless the people of New Jersey. It will be a slow process, but the rest of the nation will do the right thing one day and recognize these unions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, look. A thread where I agree with everything Scott R has said. We haven't had one of those for a while.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott: You wouldn't be a confederate to anything. You'd still have the right to try to convert people.
I believe God does not want civil unions/homosexual marriages to be legitimized. If I vote for them TO be legitimized, I'm confederate.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I believe God does not want civil unions/homosexual marriages to be legitimized. If I vote for them TO be legitimized, I'm confederate.
We're not asking for you to vote for them. Simply to abstain and not actively vote against them. To simply not bring your religion into politics, to maintain a separation of church and state. Practice banning of civil unions in your church all you want, but don't try and actively write that ban into law.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:We're not asking for you to vote for them. Simply to abstain and not actively vote against them. To simply not bring your religion into politics, to maintain a separation of church and state.
Still confederate, Alcon.
:THORNY ANALOGY FOLLOWS:
It's like going out to a party with a buddy who's a recovering alcoholic. I see someone hand him a drink, and he sits there and stares at it. I can either go up and try to talk him out of drinking the drink, do nothing that affects the situation, or go up and encourage him to take the drink.
Only one of those actions is moral, IMO.
DISCLAIMER:
I'm not comparing homosexuals to drunks. I'm comparing my feelings about voting/not voting on this particular topic to me being at a party with a recovering alcoholic, and perhaps being complicit in his return to alcoholism.
The question was abou me and my feelings, after all...
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
And that Scott is the kinda attitude that led to the creation of the United States. The kinda attitude that made the founding fathers write separation of church and state into law.
Because when people start trying to legislate their religious beliefs like this it can only lead to very very bad stuff.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
The more society changes, the more it stays the same.
The same exact arguments Scott is making in this thread I can easily see someone arguing for keeping interracial marriages illegal fifty-seventy years ago.
In fact, here is the judge's decision in Loving vs. Virginia (1958):
quote:"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
He judged in favor of keeping interracial marriages illegal in Virginia.
(Edit: These laws, called anti-miscegenation laws, were in fact legislated based on the belief that God didn't want the races to mix in the first place.)
I don't think that this judge's opinion is any more valid than Scott's or the rest of folks who are opposed to homosexual marriage for religious reasons. Pretending to know God's opinion on a subject and using this made up opinion for restricting the rights of others always looks silly through the lens of history.
I think history will judge the two situations pretty much the same way. I already do.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: We're not asking for you to vote for them. Simply to abstain and not actively vote against them. To simply not bring your religion into politics, to maintain a separation of church and state. Practice banning of civil unions in your church all you want, but don't try and actively write that ban into law.
Wow, so now "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" that became seperation of church and state now becomes asking a private individual citizen to abstain from voting on issues influenced by his religious beliefs.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:influenced by his religious beliefs.
Not influenced by. Based solely on. The only argument for banning gay marrige is that "it's against God's will". That is voting religion into law.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Nope. It's allowing religious convictions to influence individual decisions on how to vote. Nothing illegal in that. Not any more than if people choose to vote for a certain individual because they think he's handsome.
You may think the choices are foolish, but they are certainly not illegal.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:We're not asking for you to vote for them. Simply to abstain and not actively vote against them. To simply not bring your religion into politics, to maintain a separation of church and state.
Still confederate, Alcon.
:THORNY ANALOGY FOLLOWS:
It's like going out to a party with a buddy who's a recovering alcoholic. I see someone hand him a drink, and he sits there and stares at it. I can either go up and try to talk him out of drinking the drink, do nothing that affects the situation, or go up and encourage him to take the drink.
Only one of those actions is moral, IMO.
The problem with your analogy isn't the comparison. Analogies almost always use things that aren't intended to be compared as such.
My problem is that you're comparing trying to talk someone out of something with using the power of government to force your view on others.
:BETTER ANALOGY FOLLOWS:
It's like going out to a party with a buddy who's a recovering alcoholic. I see someone hand him a drink, and he sits there and stares at it. I walk over and take the drink away, despite his protests, and tell him, "You don't get to decide. I know better than you."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Nope. It's allowing religious convictions to influence individual decisions on how to vote. Nothing illegal in that. Not any more than if people choose to vote for a certain individual because they think he's handsome.
You may think the choices are foolish, but they are certainly not illegal.
When the vote actively harms people, it's not like making a decision based on a person's looks.
Families torn apart. People denied the right to grieve for spouses. Children ripped away from their parents. Institutionalized discrimination.
None of that is legitimized by religious prohibitions of sexual acts.
Of all people, Rivka, you should know the danger of allowing religious discrimination into the law. Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote::BETTER ANALOGY FOLLOWS:
It's like going out to a party with a buddy who's a recovering alcoholic. I see someone hand him a drink, and he sits there and stares at it. I walk over and take the drink away, despite his protests, and tell him, "You don't get to decide. I know better than you."
Actually, it would be an even better analogy if the person was not your friend, or anyone you even knew (making it absolutely none of your business whether he drinks or not). Furthermore, the person disagrees with you that he was an alcoholic.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
I'm about as big an opponent to SSM as we have around here, and I would never go after anybody for being Jewish, even if I knew I could get away with it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Pretending to know God's opinion on a subject and using this made up opinion for restricting the rights of others always looks silly through the lens of history.
Interesting choice of words: "Pretending," "made up...."
Whether or not you believe what I say is your choice. But if this discussion is to have any merit at all, we have to accept that the people on the other side of the argument do not have any hidden agendas in the things they say: that they actually believe what they say they believe.
Even when we DON'T believe what they say they believe.
I'm not pretending; I'm not making this up. I believe in what I say enough to stand up for it on a forum full of highly intelligent, highly articulate people who disagree with me.
We can call eachother's ideas stupid; we can poke holes in one another's philosophies. But let's not call eachother liars, okay?
quote:And that Scott is the kinda attitude that led to the creation of the United States. The kinda attitude that made the founding fathers write separation of church and state into law.
Because when people start trying to legislate their religious beliefs like this it can only lead to very very bad stuff.
Mmm... I disagree.
But whether obedience to God's commands leads to bad stuff or not, it's still imperative that those who know those commands obey them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The stupid analogy wasn't even about homosexuality.
I even said that. Explicitly.
The stupid analogy was about my feelings about voting/not voting for something that was wrong. I could have used the same analogy for voting against/ not voting at all for legalizing marijuana...
Heck, PROponents of same sex marriage could use the analogy to show why it's imperative people get out and actively stump for legitimization.
Bet he's voting his faith.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
As an aside...
Guys, we're not going to change Scott's mind. He's an authoritarian and proud of it. Arguing with him is pretty pointless.
I'd vow to stay out of this thread from here on... but I know I can't...
Pix
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:
quote:Pretending to know God's opinion on a subject and using this made up opinion for restricting the rights of others always looks silly through the lens of history.
Interesting choice of words: "Pretending," "made up...."
Whether or not you believe what I say is your choice. But if this discussion is to have any merit at all, we have to accept that the people on the other side of the argument do not have any hidden agendas in the things they say: that they actually believe what they say they believe.
I don't think you are pretending in your beliefs any more than I think the judge in the quote was pretending.
I think you are both sincere in belief in the need to legislate religious morality. He may have been a great guy, who was morally and ethically exceptional in every way (according to his belief system anyway). I'm sure he was deeply religious.
I also think the judge in the quote is arrogant, that his beliefs are disgusting, and that him and those who thought like him did much harm to the world and that their beliefs advanced bigotry and oppression. I further believe that the majority of folks reading the quote would think similarly to how I do toward him.
I don't think history will look at those who oppose homosexual marriage for religious reasons any more kindly as those who opposed interracial marriage for their religious reasons.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Of all people, Rivka, you should know the danger of allowing religious discrimination into the law. Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
I've heard this warning a couple of times on this forum (usually in regards to Mormons, first time for Jews). It boils down to 'watch out or you're next' fear mongering. It's insulting-it presumes that the person somehow wouldn't vote their convictions out of fear of what might happen to them.
Edit: Oooo, while I was typing the 'your grandchildren will think of you as a bigot' was thrown out there too. Fun.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The stupid analogy wasn't even about homosexuality.
I even said that. Explicitly.
I'm sorry Scott, I wasn't trying to attack your analogy as being representative of your views on homosexuality.
Lisa attempted to make the analogy more fitting towards the homosexual marriage situation. I saw a way to make it more fitting to this situation than her alteration (in my opinion of course).
I wasn't trying to use my extension of the analogy to attack your use of it, and I apologize if that appeared to be the case.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't think history will look at those who oppose homosexual marriage for religious reasons any more kindly as those who opposed interracial marriage for their religious reasons.
I think that worrying how history views our beliefs is a poor way to go about living the present.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
I'm about as big an opponent to SSM as we have around here, and I would never go after anybody for being Jewish, even if I knew I could get away with it.
I'm glad to hear that, Porter. I'm sorry, though, but Rivka and I come from a culture that should know better than to trust in the voluntary forbearance of individuals.
There'll always be individual exceptions. Christian supremicism in the US is growing, however, and I don't think they all have the same scruples that you do.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Nope. It's allowing religious convictions to influence individual decisions on how to vote. Nothing illegal in that. Not any more than if people choose to vote for a certain individual because they think he's handsome.
You may think the choices are foolish, but they are certainly not illegal.
I think rivka is completely correct here.
I'm not sure why so many Christians think legally banning gay marriage is something Christ would want, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is that different than saying, "When we've made similar decisions, we've been wrong. It will probably turn out that we are wrong now?"
edit - that was for Scott.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The stupid analogy wasn't even about homosexuality.
I even said that. Explicitly.
The stupid analogy was about my feelings about voting/not voting for something that was wrong. I could have used the same analogy for voting against/ not voting at all for legalizing marijuana...
Heck, PROponents of same sex marriage could use the analogy to show why it's imperative people get out and actively stump for legitimization.
Geez.
I know that, Scott. But you were comparing persuasion and coercion, and I thought the point needed to be made that they are not comparable.
When you vote for a law, you're voting to force a view on people. It's not even in the same ballpark as trying to reason with a friend.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Of all people, Rivka, you should know the danger of allowing religious discrimination into the law. Do you really think that the people pushing this the hardest wouldn't go after you for being Jewish if they thought they could get away with it?
I've heard this warning a couple of times on this forum (usually in regards to Mormons, first time for Jews). It boils down to 'watch out or you're next' fear mongering. It's insulting-it presumes that the person somehow wouldn't vote their convictions out of fear of what might happen to them.
That's not what it presumes at all. I think that all Jews are absolutely obligated to keep kosher, observe Shabbat, etc. I am absolutely convinced of this, at least as much as Porter or Scott or you are convinced that SSM is a bad thing.
I'm entitled to that view, just as y'all are entitled to your view of SSM.
But no, I would not vote for a law requiring Jews to keep kosher. I'd vote against such a law. And I wouldn't do so merely because of a personal fear that I could be next. I'd do so because of a philosophic point of view that says that I don't have a privileged position in this society. No one does. And no one is entitled to force such views on others. Persuade, yes. Argue, yes. Force, no. And law = force.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I don't have a problem with Scott voting his opinoin. I have a problem with civil rights issues being put to popular vote in the first place.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Lisa attempted to make the analogy more fitting towards the homosexual marriage situation. I saw a way to make it more fitting to this situation than her alteration (in my opinion of course).
Mine, too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only argument for banning gay marrige is that "it's against God's will". That is voting religion into law.
Those who think this is the only argument will never change the minds of the many people whose reason is not solely "gay marriage is against God's will." For one, most people who think gay marriage is against God's will also think that there are reasons for God's will being what it is.
quote:Rivka and I come from a culture that should know better than to trust in the voluntary forbearance of individuals.
But your standards still rely on the voluntary forbearance of individuals. It's somethink akin to: "People should voluntarily forbear from working to enact laws based solely on religious beliefs."
There is, quite simply, no way to stop something from becoming the law of the land if enough people want it. Even constitutional interpretations that strike down laws can be overriden if enough people care enough.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you were comparing persuasion and coercion, and I thought the point needed to be made that they are not comparable.
No. I was using the analogy to show that NOT ACTING against something I find objectionable would be as morally reprehensible, for me, as ACTING TO PROMOTE something I find objectionable.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Scott, there's acting and there's acting. You were comparing two forms of acting which I do not think can be legitimately compared. Persuasive acting and coercive acting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But no, I would not vote for a law requiring Jews to keep kosher. I'd vote against such a law. And I wouldn't do so merely because of a personal fear that I could be next. I'd do so because of a philosophic point of view that says that I don't have a privileged position in this society.
Take as a given that Scott and MPH view other acts than gay marriage as being against God's will but do not want to pass laws forbidding those laws.
Your task, if you wish to be an effective persuader, is to identify what distinguishes gay marriage from those other behaviors in their minds. The only way to do this is to attempt to truly understand their view, with such understanding as an end in itself - not as an step along the way to changing their mind.
It's a shame that the history on this board of treatment of those with their views - treatment I have not seen repeated yet on this thread, I'm happy to say - has made most people with those views unwilling to share them here in depth. Because it is a rare opportunity to exchange such understanding.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How is that different than saying, "When we've made similar decisions, we've been wrong. It will probably turn out that we are wrong now?"
I don't believe I've ever, personally, been wrong about something like this.
Worrying about what the future will say about us and our views is fairly futile. Today is the day we should be worried about.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Take as a given that Scott and MPH view other acts than gay marriage as being against God's will but do not want to pass laws forbidding those laws.
Don't forget me.
I still agree with everything Scott has said in this thread. And it's great, I don't even have to come up with my own responses. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Perfect example. rivka, would you favor a law, here in America, that forced Jews to keep kosher? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this, but I don't want to presume.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Absolutely not.
And I'm against sodomy laws as well.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott, there's acting and there's acting. You were comparing two forms of acting which I do not think can be legitimately compared. Persuasive acting and coercive acting.
Interesting. There was a discussion on this board some time ago where it was said that the reader of Ender's Game had the right to assert that Ender was female, even against the author's explicit statements.
I can't remember on which side of that discussion you fell on, starLisa. But now that I've stated plainly why I said what I said, AND that it was NOT about coercion, or persuasion, you STILL disagree with me about what I meant?
Fine. I think you're a purple rock gibbon, with pretty pink shoes and a lovely red parasol.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Purple, pink, and red TOGETHER?!? Now, that's just wrong.
Alas, now it is no longer true that I agree with everything Scott has posted in the thread. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Your task, if you wish to be an effective persuader, is to identify what distinguishes gay marriage from those other behaviors in their minds.
That's only true if it's us they are trying to persuade, and not the audience.
If third parties are the true target, then mischaracterizing our views and motives can actually be very effective.
Posted by Silent E (Member # 8840) on :
Religious people who are against gay marriage almost never base their reasons solely on the belief that "God said so". In most cases, they actually believe that damage to society (beyond mere punishment from God, or the presumed inherent damage in "getting further away from God") will result from legalizing gay marriage. It is true that this belief is informed by their religious beliefs, but I happen to think that when people genuinely believe they see damage to society impending, they have both the right and moral obligation to act in opposition to it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How would legalizing gay marriage damage society any more than, for example, legalizing breaking the Sabbath?
Honest question, not a snarky one. This is getting to the question that most puzzles me. There are so many things that are legal and, at least according to Scripture, are a much bigger deal than homosexuality, but this is the thing that gets most of the attention.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
cuz we're oogy and icky.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How would legalizing gay marriage damage society any more than, for example, legalizing breaking the Sabbath?
Given that only one of those two is binding on both Jews and non-Jews (assuming that question was directed at me), I find it completely irrelevant.
I am also not simply basing my beliefs on scripture.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Actually, I was thinking of Scott with that particular example. I realize that Jews don't expect non-Jews to hold to the same rules.
Now that you mention it though, why is the one binding on non-Jews?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because the seven Noachide Laws include sexual morality.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
That post actually does help understand why you feel the way you do, Scott [Edit: Sorry, it wasn't Scott!].
From your set of beliefs, you are acting in a completely logical and moral manner. If I shared your beliefs, I'd likely act the same.
Unfortunately, that sentiment, and the actions that follow from it, I think are a good demonstration with why religion can be a dangerous thing.
I haven't been following the "what's wrong with religion thread" for a while, but this to me is a great example [Edit2: Not with what is wrong with religion, necessarily but one way in which religious thought can be dangerous].
Perhaps you'll see why I think this way if you let me do some substitution:
quote:Religious people who are against [letting women not be completely covered in public] almost never base their reasons solely on the belief that "God said so". In most cases, they actually believe that damage to society (beyond mere punishment from God, or the presumed inherent damage in "getting further away from God") will result from [letting women not be completely covered in public]. It is true that this belief is informed by their religious beliefs, but I happen to think that when people genuinely believe they see damage to society impending, they have both the right and moral obligation to act in opposition to it.
You could insert [not executing those who deny Allah] or just about anything else into the brackets, and I think the statement is not changed one bit.
The exact same thought process for your religious legislation is true for all religious legislation, and I think it is all dangerous and downright terrifying.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Because the seven Noachide Laws include sexual morality.
Is sexual morality clearly defined?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Absolutely not.
In that case, aren't you complicit with those Jews who don't keep kosher? Or "confederate" with them, to use Scott's terminology?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Scott, there's acting and there's acting. You were comparing two forms of acting which I do not think can be legitimately compared. Persuasive acting and coercive acting.
Interesting. There was a discussion on this board some time ago where it was said that the reader of Ender's Game had the right to assert that Ender was female, even against the author's explicit statements.
I can't remember on which side of that discussion you fell on, starLisa. But now that I've stated plainly why I said what I said, AND that it was NOT about coercion, or persuasion, you STILL disagree with me about what I meant?
Fine. I think you're a purple rock gibbon, with pretty pink shoes and a lovely red parasol.
That's silly, Scott. It is a fact that the example you gave was one of persuasion. Do you claim that it was not?
And it is a fact that using the power of law to deny people like me the right to marry is not a matter of persuasion, but of coercion. Do you claim otherwise?
If you disagree with either one of those facts, I'm open to hearing why. If you agree with them both, then why can't you just say, "Good point, Lisa. The analogy was faulty."
Whether you intended to compare two things that can't be compared isn't at issue. But you can only claim that you didn't intend to. If you want to claim that you actually didn't, in the face of what seems to be a clear contradiction, then it behooves you to explain why, and not just continue to assert, "But that's not what I meant."
And the analogy to Ender as a girl is a false one. I'm not arguing with what you claim your intent was. I'm arguing that as a point of fact, you did use a case of persuasion to demonstrate why coercion is okay. And that's not okay.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Because the seven Noachide Laws include sexual morality.
Which includes a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife.
Rivka, would you support (vote for) a law criminalizing a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife, here in the US?
Note that the same law does not forbid a man from sleeping with a non-married woman, whether he's married or not.
Furthermore, would you, if you're basing this on the Noachide laws, support a law that makes abortion a capital offense for non-Jews? Pikuach nefesh isn't an exception for non-Jews.
How about legalizing lesbian marriage? I mean, the Noachide laws don't forbid anything between two women. And in fact, they don't forbid marriage, or marriage-type relationships between men, either. Just anal sex. And there are no extentions of that law for non-Jews, as there are for Jews.
Since lesbianism is not contrary to the Noachide laws (even if you insist on claiming that it's against Jewish law), would you agree to support a law permitting two women to marry? If not, I'm curious to know why not.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Because the seven Noachide Laws include sexual morality.
Is sexual morality clearly defined?
Yes. Rivka is using a common translation for gilui arayot. But there is a clear definition of the parameters of that set of prohibitions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You could insert [not executing those who deny Allah] or just about anything else into the brackets, and I think the statement is not changed one bit.
The exact same thought process for your religious legislation is true for all religious legislation, and I think it is all dangerous and downright terrifying.
And if you remove the references to religion from your rephrased answer, you could still have people justifying their ban in the exact same way.
For example, there are non-religious people who want to ban porn based on how it harms women. Some of their bills have been struck down on first amendment grounds.
Further, your analysis quite simply ignores what it is that makes people choose to not desire legal enforcement of other moral premises arising from their religion.
Almost everyone's analysis of what should be legal or illegal includes an analysis of the harm wrought by the contemplated act, whether the person doing the contemplation is religious or not.
This is especially true when we consider enforcement via denial of benefits, as opposed to coercion (which is why Lisa's reworking of Scott's analogy doesn't quite fit.) rivka's position, at least, distinguishes between these concepts in some way.
We give benefits based on some pretty strange criteria in this country.
Superior medical benefits are available based on age (Medicare is much better than Medicaid, and is not need-based).
People who choose to buy a house get significant tax savings, but only if they choose to finance it via mortgage.
People who buy medical insurance through their employer get to deduct it; people who buy it themselves don't.
People who choose to study in fields other than divinity can receive scholarships to do so (in either Washington or Oregon).
People who make part of their living gambling face a less-lenient tax structure than people who don't.
Here are the people denied access to the civil benefits of marriage:
1.) same sex couples. 2.) people related by blood to a certain degree. 3.) people below a certain age. 4.) people below a certain age who don't have parental consent. 5.) people lacking the ability to form consent (3 & 4 can be considered a subset of this). 6.) people who are already married (WRT their newly desired spouse).
Further, people who do not wish to marry - some of whom choose this for ethical/philosophical/religious reasons - are denied significant benefits that we make available to those who do marry. While this can be viewed as the exercise of a choice to decline the benefits, we still package those benefits together in a rather arbitrary way.
For example, consider two brothers who live together. Unless both share title, they suffer capital gains hits that spouses who don't share title can avoid. If one supports the other (assuming neither is a ward of the other), they pay higher taxes than if one spouse supports the other. They are ineligible for survivorship benefits from Social Security. The list goes on.
We provide these benefits for a reason. To my mind, we can provide them to same sex couples without harming civil marriage's ability to fulfill those reasons, in a way that the other limitations on marriage could not be accomodated. Others disagree.
Still others feel that a set of benefits which is intended to encourage certain behavior - and make no mistake, almost all government benefits are intended to encourage some behavior and discourage others - should not be extended to encourage behavior they don't see as desirable.
The law is rife with benefits denied when the benefits would encourage undesireable behavior - and morality is often a component of what determines desireability.
This is why don't think coercion is the appropriate term here. Marriage laws aren't coercion, but bribery. The fact that some don't want certain kinds of behavior to elicit those bribes isn't novel to this particular issue.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:There are so many things that are legal and, at least according to Scripture, are a much bigger deal than homosexuality, but this is the thing that gets most of the attention.
...in this thread. If you go over to the OSC side, and look in the Card on Capitalism and Mormons thread, you'll see me be just as passionate about another thing that makes me an evil, authoritarian, patriarchal, bigoted pig-dog.
quote:How would legalizing gay marriage damage society any more than, for example, legalizing breaking the Sabbath?
It depends on what you call 'damaged.' The fact that eight year old girls wear low rider jeans is evidence (to me) of a damaged society; other folks think it's okay to dress little girls up like they're sexually available.
Back on topic:
I don't know that homosexual marriage WILL damage society. I think it will make sin more accessible.
To understand my religious objections to same sex marriage (and I know you didn't ask), you have to know:
1) I believe that spirts have a definite gender.
2) Our Heavenly Father has a definite gender (male), and he is married to our Heavenly Mother (female). These are our Heavenly Parents, who created (for lack of a better word) our spirits.
3) Our goal in existence is to become like our Heavenly Parents. Our goal is to learn what we need to learn in this life, return to them, and continue to create spirit children, the same way they do.
4) Our Heavenly Parents are what they are because they honored laws that allowed them to be that way. This is an important and interesting theological difference between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity: God Himself is the fount of all good in our reality, but He does not exactly determine what is right and wrong. This is important in my view -- for example, God cannot make adultery not sinful.
5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
6) Everything that our Heavenly Parents do is to lead their children to the type of marriage and the type of life that will allow us to be like them.
7) When we leave this life, our habits will stay with us; as well as some of our predilictions, character traits, etc. I like how OSC says it in (fudge, can't remember the title now).. basically, "Jesus cured the sick, the lame, the blind. He never cured even one SOB."
8) Homosexuality, for reasons that should be clear now that I've rambled for a while, is in opposition to the plan of our Heavenly Parents. As far as we Mormons know, there is no pair of Heavenly Fathers any where in eternity. As far as *I* know, this is because there is a...law... that prohibits two male spirits from creating spirit children.
9) Social approbation of homosexuality and homosexual unions can be a hinderance to the plan of our Heavenly Parents by influencing us to participate in a lifestyle and form habits and characterizations that are not beneficial to our eternal goal.
That about covers my religious objections. I'm sure I've botched something, or not covered some particular area well enough.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Which includes a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife.
Rivka, would you support (vote for) a law criminalizing a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife, here in the US?
rivka already stated she doesn't think that there should be a law banning sodomy. So there's something else than merely being part of the Noachide laws that applies here. She has not in this thread advanced the premise that the Noachide Laws should all be enforced by the civil or criminal law, merely that those non-Jews who don't follow them are acting in violation of God's law in a way that a non-Jew "violating" the Sabbath is not.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:And if you remove the references to religion from your rephrased answer, you could still have people justifying their ban in the exact same way.
I don't think so, Dag.
Say someone thinks [X] is wrong, because their religion says [X] is wrong. They are opposed to legally letting [X] exist in our society, because [X] would harm society. Why does this person believe [X] is harmful to society? Because their religion says it is wrong!
This person is acting in a logic way, and in a rational way, but based off of irrational* premises.
You cannot remove religion from this without replacing it with another irrational premise.
* As defined by me as: "Not based on reason**." ** Where reason is defined as: "thought based on logic and facts"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:There are so many things that are legal and, at least according to Scripture, are a much bigger deal than homosexuality, but this is the thing that gets most of the attention.
...in this thread. If you go over to the OSC side, and look in the Card on Capitalism and Mormons thread, you'll see me be just as passionate about another thing that makes me an evil, authoritarian, patriarchal, bigoted pig-dog.
Now really. Did I say that?
quote:How would legalizing gay marriage damage society any more than, for example, legalizing breaking the Sabbath?
It depends on what you call 'damaged.' The fact that eight year old girls wear low rider jeans is evidence (to me) of a damaged society; other folks think it's okay to dress little girls up like they're sexually available.
Back on topic:
I don't know that homosexual marriage WILL damage society. I think it will make sin more accessible. [/QUOTE]
So would you vote for laws to give benefits to parents who dress their daughter in a way you (and I, BTW) think is undamaging to society? And there was a time (not too long ago - still may be in some places) where stores were, by law, forbidden to be open on Sundays. Having them open does make sin more accessible. Do you vote for those laws?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why does this person believe [X] is harmful to society? Because their religion says it is wrong!
This is where you leave the tracks. For example, OSC believes that tolerating open, non-traditional sexual relationships will lead to a breakdown of the organizational effects of marriage. Whether he's right or not, it's not a strictly religious reason.
There's no strictly rational basis in the sense you seem to be using it for banning homosexual marriage. But there's also no strictly rational basis for making a whole host of benefits available to two people who intend to have sex exclusively.
All laws have, at their heart, an irrational premise. There is no way to get from a strictly observationally statement to a moral imperative without some axiomatic premise that cannot be proven.
Let's pick what should be an easy example: murder laws.
Why do we make it illegal to kill another person (in most cases)?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This person is acting in a logic way, and in a rational way, but based off of irrational* premises.
You cannot remove religion from this without replacing it with another irrational premise.
* As defined by me as: "Not based on reason**." ** Where reason is defined as: "thought based on logic and facts"
I absolutely love those definitions, because they allow you to paint anything you disagree with as being based on irrational premises.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:9) Social approbation of homosexuality and homosexual unions can be a hinderance to the plan of our Heavenly Parents by influencing us to participate in a lifestyle and form habits and characterizations that are not beneficial to our eternal goal.
I fail to see how society making something legal has anything to do with what you choose to do with your life according to your beliefs. You do know that if same-sex civil unions were legal that you wouldn't have to engage in the practice, right?
On a broader scale, I don't understand the "society will be/might be harmed" reason that many opponents of same-sex civil unions have. What exactly are you trying to make society into? A secular version of all that is good and Holy? "You don't have to believe in God, but we want you to do what he thinks is right, anyway, because it's for the good of all society"? Do you honestly think that you will halt the downfall of society by banning this? Or do you think that perhaps this will be a start to reversing the process?
I just don't buy the reasoning Dagonee expresses here:
quote:Those who think this is the only argument will never change the minds of the many people whose reason is not solely "gay marriage is against God's will." For one, most people who think gay marriage is against God's will also think that there are reasons for God's will being what it is.
Okay, so God has reasons for his will being what it is--but why does it immediately follow that you (general "you" here--I'm not solely speaking to Dagonee or Scott) think he wants you to impose his will on everyone else? There are a lot of rules that God has that have good reasons behind them--in fact, I'd dare suggest that all of his rules have good reasons behind them. God gave everyone free choice to follow his rules or not, and I don't see that any of us have the right to take that away by rule of law. The only place where we have a right to make laws is to prevent someone from doing something that infringes on other peoples' rights.
For the record, I do think that same-sex sexual relationships are wrong--but that is based on my religious beliefs. I do not believe I have some God-led duty to force my beliefs on everyone else. It's actually taken me some time to get to that point, as I've been persuaded by other opponents to same-sex marriage and civil unions and their arguments about the damage to society. I still am iffy about same-sex marriage--but civil unions seems like a fine compromise to me. Marriages can move completely to the realm of religion, and civil unions can offer the legal benefits needed to 2 people choosing to spend their lives together--dare I say I don't care if they have a romantic connection or not. There are plenty of convenience marriages around already--and it would be nice if they could turn to civil unions. If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage, then maybe you should worry about people who marry who don't really love and care for each other.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But there's also no strictly rational basis for making a whole host of benefits available to two people who intend to have sex exclusively.
Yeah, there is. The benefits of marriage for both the people in it and the surrounding society. Ultimately, you could say that wanting things that are good for people and for society is irrational, but that's several levels removed from the irrationality of a religious or personal prejudice.
quote:Why do we make it illegal to kill another person (in most cases)?
We don't want to get killed and set up society in such a way that "people like me not getting killed" is strongly discouraged.
[ October 26, 2006, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Now really. Did I say that?
No, you didn't. I should be clearer when I'm being self-deprecating for Pixiest's (and other libertarians') benefit.
Kind of like, "You can't call me an authoritarian, blahdy, blahdy, blahdy-- HA! I already called MYSELF that!"
quote:So would you vote for laws to give benefits to parents who dress their daughter in a way you (and I, BTW) think is undamaging to society? And there was a time (not too long ago - still may be in some places) where stores were, by law, forbidden to be open on Sundays. Having them open does make sin more accessible. Do you vote for those laws?
The first-- no. I don't give that particular element enough weight to merit social benefits. Should I?
The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I have to wonder, how long do states like MA and NJ have to not show any of the signs that OSC and others say they will (e.g. turning into places like Arkansas and Alabama in regards to their divorce rate) before we're allowed to disregard their dire warnings?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, I'm forgetting, are you okay with saying that places like Afghanistan should be able to kill people who, for example, convert away from Islam? I'm not asking if you support such or thing or that you'd work against it, just whether you think this is legitimate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The benefits of marriage for both the people in it and the surrounding society.
That's not terribly useful, as many people on both sides on the SSM have this exact motivation.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...what does that have to do with what Dag asked and I answered?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
MrSquicky, probably until after we're dead. This situation is different qualitatively compared to the racial civil rights cause 50 years-ago, so I don't suspect public anti-SSM/homosexual opinions to become taboo as quickly as anti-miscegenation/racist opinions.
-Bok
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Social Contract.
So, I would have to say that if someone honestly believes that the US will be a worse place because same sex couples could do things like sitting at a bedside in a hospital while their loved one is dying, being able to put their long-time exclusive partner on a health benefits plan, or gain custody of the child they have raised after that child's sole guardian, their partner, dies in a car accident, then . . . ok. I guess vote on that, if your heart and mind are really telling you that's a loving and fair thing to do.
I find withholding basic rights from other people because of their mutually consenting sexual acts morally repugnant.
I do NOT find it morally repugnant to believe that the choice to engage in mutually consenting sexual acts, whether homosexual, extramarital, premarital, or interesting positions etc. are wrong; I have no problem with people writing books about it, or preaching about it. But denying people things like having access to someone they love at death's door? Blegh.
I also cannot imagine worshipping an entity that really wanted that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You do know that if same-sex civil unions were legal that you wouldn't have to engage in the practice, right?
Did you honestly think they don't know that?
Assuming you do, why do you think this is a worthwhile response?
quote:I just don't buy the reasoning Dagonee expresses here:
Then you will, quite simply, never even be discussing the actual disputed issues with someone who opposes civil gay marriage.
quote:The only place where we have a right to make laws is to prevent someone from doing something that infringes on other peoples' rights.
People assert this as the foundational premise for law all the time as if everyone should accept it. It's a fairly controversial premise to which many people - possibly the majority - don't subscribe. This doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it a futile way to convince those who don't share this premise when no attempt is made to convince those that it is a proper premise of the law.
A communist shouldn't use "all property is theft" as a premise when debating a capitalist and a Christian shouldn't use Scriptural passages as premises when debating a non-Christian who gives no credence to Scripture. Rather, these premises should be recognized as a disputed point which should be proven. The same thing applies to the premise "only things that harm other people should be made illegal." It must be supported, because chances are it's not accepted as a premise.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The same thing applies to the premise "only things that harm other people should be made illegal." It must be supported, because chances are it's not accepted as a premise.
Alternatively, I think that for a number of people on one side, the premise is basically "I should be allowed to enforce my religion on others, but others should not be allowed to do the same to me.", which basically turns things into a might makes right situation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah, there is. The benefits of marriage for both the people in it and the surrounding society. Ultimately, you could say that wanting things that are good for people and for society is irrational, but that's several levels removed from the irrationality of a religious or personal prejudice.
And yet still founded on an irrational premise.
quote:We don't want to get killed and set up society in such a way that "people like me not getting killed" is strongly discouraged.
This requires at least one premise. Perhaps "Society ought to be set up to discourage events that I find undesirable," although that's too general to provide any distinguishing power. How about, "Society ought to be set up to discourage events that essentially every one would find undesirable." I won't quibble about the few people who don't find death undesireable. However, this is still an irrational premise. The only thing that allows selecting it over "Society ought to be set up so as to allow the strongest to have whatever they want" is either another irrational premise of equality or an exercise in selecting rules without knowing one's place on the board in advance.
But the premises that support that exercise are equally irrational.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You do know that if same-sex civil unions were legal that you wouldn't have to engage in the practice, right?
Did you honestly think they don't know that?
Why should I assume he does? The premise of the part I quoted seemed to indicate that he (or perhaps he meant other people) would be influenced by such a law--my reply is "So what?"
quote:Assuming you do, why do you think this is a worthwhile response?
quote:I just don't buy the reasoning Dagonee expresses here:
Then you will, quite simply, never even be discussing the actual disputed issues with someone who opposes civil gay marriage.
I wasn't talking about the idea that it isn't because God says so that you oppose Same-Sex marriage but rather the reasons behind it---what I don't buy is that it makes a difference. What I don't buy is that it immediately follows that God wants you to or, separate from what God wants, that you SHOULD impose those reasons on other people. I'm perfectly willing to discuss those issues--but if the only reason is that society will be adversly affected--then how is that? I've yet to hear a compelling argument.
quote:
quote:The only place where we have a right to make laws is to prevent someone from doing something that infringes on other peoples' rights.
People assert this as the foundational premise for law all the time as if everyone should accept it. It's a fairly controversial premise to which many people - possibly the majority - don't subscribe. This doesn't make it wrong, but it does make it a futile way to convince those who don't share this premise when no attempt is made to convince those that it is a proper premise of the law.
You're kidding me... I'm honestly surprised. There are reasonable people out there who don't believe this? What DO they believe? What are laws for for them? To make people do good? Be right? Be Holy? Moral? Upright?
quote:A communist shouldn't use "all property is theft" as a premise when debating a capitalist and a Christian shouldn't use Scriptural passages as premises when debating a non-Christian who gives no credence to Scripture. Rather, these premises should be recognized as a disputed point which should be proven. The same thing applies to the premise "only things that harm other people should be made illegal." It must be supported, because chances are it's not accepted as a premise.
Okay... I'm not sure what sort of argument I could make that doesn't fall back on my own feelings on the subject. I believe as free people, we should BE free--to do whatever we want whenever we want wherever we want, as long as it doesn't inflict on other people's rights. I do believe in the right to own property and to have a home, and that most of the things that we are free to do can be done there in privacy, since doing them in public would be infringing on other people's rights. How can I prove that? I really have no idea.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people don't believe that, but I was surprised to actually be questioned about it. I am quite aware that there are plenty of people who actually believe in the "good for you" laws. I just... can't respect that attitude.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:The same thing applies to the premise "only things that harm other people should be made illegal." It must be supported, because chances are it's not accepted as a premise.
Alternatively, I think that for a number of people on one side, the premise is basically "I should be allowed to enforce my religion on others, but others should not be allowed to do the same to me.", which basically turns things into a might makes right situation.
Alternatively, I think that for a number of people on one side, the premise is basically "anyone who wants to legislate against an outcome that does not meet a particular chronologically distinct viewpoint about what constitutes 'harm' is a reactionary who wants to shove their religion down our throat."
Posted by Allegra (Member # 6773) on :
From my understanding it is illegal to kill another person because that person has the right to live, and you killing them infringes on that right. I always understood it to be one of those my rights end at the tip of your nose type of things.
Edit: I guess I am just too slow for this thread.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You're kidding me... I'm honestly surprised. There are reasonable people out there who don't believe this? What DO they believe? What are laws for for them? To make people do good? Be right? Be Holy? Moral? Upright?
Here's one take on the subject of what government and laws are for: "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Lisa believes that using coercion (taxes, for example) to "promote the general Welfare" is a an immoral end of government.
The police power of the States is often written as encompassing the ability to enforce morals.
This isn't novel, and it isn't a fringe outlook. The fact that you are so suprised is a little shocking, actually. The fact that you assume people who don't share this premise must be unreasonable is a little sad.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How about, "Society ought to be set up to discourage events that essentially every one would find undesirable."
Weren't you party to the many iterations of this discussion before?
I'll counter with the veil of ignorance argument. How do you set up a system when you don't know what place you will take in it? It much like the "I should be allowed to impose my religion on others, but not them on me." hypocracy. If you don't know if you are going to be the oppressor or the oppressed, you don't support oppression.
There is also the fitness/sustainability argument. If we grant the irrational premise that societies that sustain themselves and their citizens are better than those that don't, we have a basis for saying certain legal systems are better than others.
Yes, ultimately everything comes down to non-rational assumptions such as "I don't want to die.", but there's a huge difference between extrapolating from premises like that as opposed to allowing premises like "I/my God thinks that is wrong." as foundational precepts.
One of the major ones is that it provides a basis for discussion that has more or less universal bases. As porter pointed out, people on both sides of many issues have the benefit of society as their concern. So we can say things like "This will harm society because ...." These statements can be evaluated as to whether they are true or reasonable or whatever. Thus, we set up a system where correctness makes right as opposed to the very different one of might makes right that you seem to be saying that it really is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:From my understanding it is illegal to kill another person because that person has the right to live, and you killing them infringes on that right. I always understood it to be one of those my rights end at the tip of your nose type of things.
"My rights end at the tip of your nose type of things" doesn't justify 1) employment discrimination laws, 2) laws banning the cruel treatment of animals, or 3) suicide laws.
Now, I get that people can define harm to allow this premise to support #1, can create more limited rights based on ability to feel pain to justify #2, and either justify #3 with a premise suicide is often involuntary or can simply say #3 is an unjust law.
However, it should be clear that historically, laws have not been solely based on a "my rights end at the tip of your nose type of things" premise, although that is certainly a premise that is used often and is shared by many.
There's also so much play in the word "rights" and "end of my nose" that it's not as tight a restraint as many people think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:You do know that if same-sex civil unions were legal that you wouldn't have to engage in the practice, right?
Yes.
quote:What exactly are you trying to make society into? A secular version of all that is good and Holy?
...according to me, yes. Isn't everyone?
quote:Do you honestly think that you will halt the downfall of society by banning this? Or do you think that perhaps this will be a start to reversing the process?
I'm going to say this again-- it bears repeating:
It. Doesn't. Matter. What. Happens.
What. Matters. Is. Obedience. To. God's. Laws.
Really, I won't get tired of saying it.
So, for the record: I am not personally saying that anything society wide WILL happen. Maybe it won't. I DO think, spiritually, from a Mormon POV, we'll be the poorer for it.
quote:If you're worried about the sanctity of marriage, then maybe you should worry about people who marry who don't really love and care for each other.
Discussing the one (homosexual marriage rights) doesn't preclude being concerned about the other, you know.
I'm a Mormon. I can be worried about LOTS of things ALL at the same time. And somehow they'll all wind up fueling my martyr complex...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'll counter with the veil of ignorance argument. How do you set up a system when you don't know what place you will take in it?
The idea that this is how it should be set up is still based on an irrational premise - that a system should be set up as if one didn't know one's place in it.
quote:If we grant the irrational premise that societies that sustain themselves and their citizens are better than those that don't, we have a basis for saying certain legal systems are better than others.
Again, though, it's founded on an irrational premise.
quote:Yes, ultimately everything comes down to non-rational assumptions such as "I don't want to die.", but there's a huge difference between extrapolating from premises like that as opposed to allowing premises like "I/my God thinks that is wrong." as foundational precepts.
Again, few limit it to "my God thinks that is wrong."
quote:One of the major ones is that it provides a basis for discussion that has more or less universal bases. As porter pointed out, people on both sides of many issues have the benefit of society as their concern. So we can say things like "This will harm society because ...." These statements can be evaluated as to whether they are true or reasonable or whatever. Thus, we set up a system where correctness makes right as opposed to the very different one of might makes right that you seem to be saying that it really is.
Which is still founded on an irrational premise, which is my only point.
I'm almost totally done with you by the way. I have not said that it's might make right, and it's so damn tiresome having to correct this that I have no clue at this point how I'm going to handle it.
Please, I'm begging you, let me know what I can do so that you won't make crap up about what I say.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I'm going to say this again-- it bears repeating:
It. Doesn't. Matter. What. Happens.
What. Matters. Is. Obedience. To. God's. Laws.
I. Get. To. Force. My. Religion. On. Others. But. They. Can't. Do. The. Same. To. Me.
If our society worked that way, the Baptists, et al, would waste no time in making LDS second class citizens at the very least. No missions. Persecution. Conversion away from the TRUE religion heavily sanctioned. Where would your God's laws be then?
Western society worked like that at one time. But we escaped that festering hell hole. I sometimes get incensed when people try to push us back in, becasue they're right and everyone else is wrong.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:You're kidding me... I'm honestly surprised. There are reasonable people out there who don't believe this? What DO they believe? What are laws for for them? To make people do good? Be right? Be Holy? Moral? Upright?
Here's one take on the subject of what government and laws are for: "in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
Lisa believes that using coercion (taxes, for example) to "promote the general Welfare" is a an immoral end of government.
The police power of the States is often written as encompassing the ability to enforce morals.
This isn't novel, and it isn't a fringe outlook. The fact that you are so suprised is a little shocking, actually. The fact that you assume people who don't share this premise must be unreasonable is a little sad.
You know, I honestly find it hard to talk to you. You don't actually say anything that is definitively a personal attack, and yet your tone certainly implies condescension and has a patronizing tone--in plain english, you're freaking mean. Specifically in the "little sad" comment. But I'm sure you'll have some well-articulated response as to how it's warranted, relevant, and certainly not personal.
But in any case, why can't we just address my main point instead of asking that I prove my premise about laws? Or conversely prove that there should be laws that have nothing to do with preventing harm to another? Promote the common welfare? Okay, who defines what welfare is?
Get to the nitty gritty--How EXACTLY do same-sex unions ruin or damage society? If you answer nothing else, please answer this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I. Get. To. Force. My. Religion. On. Others. But. They. Can't. Do. The. Same. To. Me.
I'm curious where you find the italicized portion in what you quoted from Scott.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott, you make it really hard for me to defend faith to the other atheists...
I guess just getting along really is impossible. Maybe we should all just fight and see who wins.
Maybe one day we'll have more votes than you. Maybe one day we'll have enough judges to interpret the consitution against faith the way its been traditionally interpreted against gay people. I'm sure we can find away around that pesky first amendment. The 2nd sure gets ignored enough. Heck, the constitution is just paper these days anyway.
Then again, maybe we could stop fighting against eachother, grow some mutal respect and you can follow your god and gay people can follow their hearts.
Dag: You don't have to say anything, I know.. I know...
Pix
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Scott, here is a question.
You believe that refraining from homosexuality is God's law.
You wish to make it illegal for people who are going to break that law routinely, not do so with any approval of secular law. In other words, no governmental sancitioning of what you believe is against God's law.
Several people on this board, and millions around the world, believe that eating Kosher food is God's law. Add to them the Islamic members of our world, and the eating of Pork is seen as prohibited by even more people. Not because eating Pork is unhealthy or dangerous, but because it is against what they believe is God's law.
Should we then stop all government subsidies to the Pork industry and not allow pork products to be served in any governmental institution or institution that recieves government funds?
From the points of view of those who are Jewish and Muslim, and as its one less meat being eaten, even from the Hindu's out there, such a ban would be furthering God's Law.
Would you go easily into that bacon-free existance or would you complain, "Hey, that's not what I believe. Why must I be one to pay for your beliefs?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You know, I honestly find it hard to talk to you. You don't actually say anything that is definitively a personal attack, and yet your tone certainly implies condescension and has a patronizing tone--in plain english, you're freaking mean. Specifically in the "little sad" comment.
As opposed to "There are reasonable people out there who don't believe this?" I you can express shock that someone who holds a different premise about law-making than you can actually be reasonable, why is it inappropriate for me to express sadness about that.
quote:Get to the nitty gritty--How EXACTLY do same-sex unions ruin or damage society? If you answer nothing else, please answer this.
I don't believe that it does.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dan, once again, Jews don't believe it immoral for non-Jews to eat pork. Just an aside to correct a very common misperception.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I guess because I see a difference between my suggesting that people, plural, are unreasonable for thinking something and someone suggesting that I personally am stupid for thinking something.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I didn't suggest that you were stupid.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Yeah Dag, sometimes I wish we could all be as tolerant as Othodox Jews.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Why does this person believe [X] is harmful to society? Because their religion says it is wrong!
This is where you leave the tracks. For example, OSC believes that tolerating open, non-traditional sexual relationships will lead to a breakdown of the organizational effects of marriage. Whether he's right or not, it's not a strictly religious reason.
There's no strictly rational basis in the sense you seem to be using it for banning homosexual marriage. But there's also no strictly rational basis for making a whole host of benefits available to two people who intend to have sex exclusively.
There was no "strictly rational" basis for extending those rights to interracial couples.
There's a principle in this country that if we err, we do so on the side of liberty.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yeah Dag, sometimes I wish we could all be as tolerant as Othodox Jews.
That has nothing to do with tolerance, Dan.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Take as a given that Scott and MPH view other acts than gay marriage as being against God's will but do not want to pass laws forbidding those laws.
I have no idea about MPH's views on the subject, but from what Scott is saying I'm starting to doubt this is true in relation to him. Scott has said that if Blue laws were being voted on, he would vote for them. Scott, how far does this go? Would you make all non-marital sex illegal? Would you make alcohol illegal? Tobacco? Coffee? Would you ban sleeveless shirts and shorts that stop above the knees? At what point does following God's commandments necessitate a law instead of being an issue of agency?
[Note: These are intended as serious, respectful questions. I am not trying to belittle in any way, simply to understand.]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Please, I'm begging you, let me know what I can do so that you won't make crap up about what I say.
You're going to have to point out where I did that, Dag. In that I, and others, seem to have problems figuring out what you are trying to say to couch my impressions of what you are saying in terms to make it clear that this is how it appears to me, rather a reflection what you are definitely saying.
If you don't want me to do this, I'd suggest coming out and making your points in clear and sufficiently articulated statements. From my perspective, this is something you don't often do.
You may also want to, when someone says things like:
quote:Yes, ultimately everything comes down to non-rational assumptions such as "I don't want to die.", but there's a huge difference between extrapolating from premises like that as opposed to allowing premises like "I/my God thinks that is wrong." as foundational precepts.
to at the very least acknowledge that this is what they are talking about and are likely to respond to the thing you say in light of this. I granted your premise but extended the analysis to include other things. All you had to do to respond if all you were concerned about what "The lie on irrational premises" was to acknowledge that I agreed with you. If you then wanted to continue the discussion, you could address the obvious main point of what that I was saying.
These are things you could do.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I suspect that, as with most issues like this, there are those on either side with reasoned arguments for their positions, those who believe what they believe without actually thinking about why.
Where the mistake is made is in assuming that the unreasoned people present the only argument, and tarring the entire opposition with the same brush.
Personally, I'm very grateful to Scott R. for taking the time to spell out what he believes and why. Understanding and communication is far more important to society-building than "yeah, well, I heard you believe such-and-such so you're wrong."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: There's a principle in this country that if we err, we do so on the side of liberty.
I agree completely!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
For me, voting on a law doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I think whatever is being voted on is right or not. It has everything to do with whether I think that society has a right to prevent people who don't think it's wrong to do it or not. Voting for or against it doesn't make me guilty of the sin. I'm not voting that people go partake in the sin--I'm voting that they be left alone about it because society or the government has no right to dictate to them whether or not they should do it.
If I don't feel that it's right for me personally to prevent someone from sinning, then I don't believe that it's right for the government to do it either.
It seems to have been suggested here that Scott believes that he doesn't have the right to prevent other people from sinning, specifically the sin of same-sex unions, but he does have a duty to try to persuade them not to--so if that's true, Scott--and please feel free to correct me if it's not--then why do you feel it's alright to extend a right to the government that you don't feel you have individually?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We're dogpiling Scott. *gives Scott a cookie even though she couldn't disagree with him stronger*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There was no "strictly rational" basis for extending those rights to interracial couples.
I agree. This is why insistence on "strictly rational" basis for laws is scary to me.
quote:to couch my impressions of what you are saying in terms to make it clear that this is how it appears to me
Claiming I said that "might makes right" is not restating what I did in an attempt to clarify it, Squicky. You can get to "might makes right" from where I stopped only if you add additional premises that I did not put forth. This is why I doubt that you do these things in good faith - because I don't believe you don't know that additional premises are there.
It's the moral equivalent of "recouching" the statement "I think abortion should be legal" as "You think people should be allowed to kill human beings."
There are people who think that a fetus is a human baby and that abortion should still be legal. But there are many who do not believe the being to be aborted is a human being. That's not "recouching," it's assigning beliefs to another without basis. And it's near constant with you.
quote:If you don't want me to do this, I'd suggest coming out and making your points in clear and sufficiently articulated statements. From my perspective, this is something you don't often do.
Then I guess I'll have to do something else, because, from my perspective, you are not clarifying, but adding. Therefore, making it unnecessary for you to "clarify" is not going to help.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Exactly. Much like supporting a neo-Nazis right to spout his hatred, the issue isn't neccessarily about supporting the use the principle is put to as it is the principle itself.
For example, let's say that I don't think that LDS is a true religion and that they are doing harm by spreading it. I could take Scott's tack and say that I can't vote for people who would allow them to do this thing or I could take my tack and say that it's not my place nor the government's place to suppress things like that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Claiming I said that "might makes right"
Err...I never did this.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Which includes a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife.
Rivka, would you support (vote for) a law criminalizing a man having sex with a married woman who isn't his wife, here in the US?
rivka already stated she doesn't think that there should be a law banning sodomy. So there's something else than merely being part of the Noachide laws that applies here. She has not in this thread advanced the premise that the Noachide Laws should all be enforced by the civil or criminal law, merely that those non-Jews who don't follow them are acting in violation of God's law in a way that a non-Jew "violating" the Sabbath is not.
Correct. Accordingly, I would be against a law that granted legal rights to the relationship specified.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Pretty sure that wasn't me. Either that, or my memory is even worse than I thought it was.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I'm a Mormon. I can be worried about LOTS of things ALL at the same time. And somehow they'll all wind up fueling my martyr complex...
Pfft. Like y'all invented that.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Yeah Dag, sometimes I wish we could all be as tolerant as Orthodox Jews.
No need to get snarky, Dan. You used an analogy that doesn't work, and it was already explained why it doesn't in this thread.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That has nothing to do with tolerance, Dan.
Right again. Hey, Dags, next time I have a meeting and work and disappear for a couple hours, can I hire you? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Katarain: Dag merely suggest that he was justified in feeling sad that you found it so shoking that folks are reasonable and yet disagree with the way you see things.
You seem to be equating that with stupid and while stupid people are often shocked for the same reasons you are, not all shocked people are stupid. ---------
I'm still trying to gather my thoughts about this entire thread, without simply posting the same rhetoric that we have all read many times. Ill likely fail anyway.
I can't help but be influenced by this idea.
If a core part of what I believe is to share the truths I believe I posess, is it right to condone a behavior that multiples the difficulty in sharing that truth a hundred fold?
By that I mean, picture this.
I meet a man who is in poverty. He accepts the truthfulness of my beliefs as I present them to him. He agonizingly agrees to donate 1/10th of his income to the church knowing he is spending money he needs. Whether or not his faith is rewarded is unimportant.
ok now I go to this.
I make friends with a pair of women who have been married for 10 years and have adopted 2 children. They ask about my faith and as I share it with them they believe. They now have to accept the fact that to enjoy all the benefits of the truth I have shared with them they can no longer remain married, they cannot have the same sexual intimacy that they have previously enjoyed. They have to divorce, figure out custody of the children they have already adopted and begin the painful process of moving on.
I have asked men and women to give up alcohol, their riches, their pride, their coffee and tea, their sabbaths, all because I knew by so doing they could obtain an incredible amount of joy in their acts of selflessness. But I have never asked anybody to give up their genuine love of anything. A person cannot love their money, their tea, their hobbies, the same way they can love another human being.
I cannot begin to conceive the amount of pain it would cause to ask two men or women to do what I have suggested in the second scenario.
I cannot stop people from being gay and acting on it, but should I really allow it to become more and more difficult for people to accept the truth I honestly believe I possess? It honestly feels like being an abolishionist and being told to allow the Dred Scott decision to stand. Under our constitution slaves were not humans, they were property. Just because somebody owns slaves doesnt mean I have to own them. What somebody does with their property is NOT any of my business. Their slaves are not HURTING me, or infringing on MY rights. Just because my religion dictates that its wrong, their beliefs dictate that its a neccesity, a way of life perfectly justified.
I honestly believe that by encouraging homosexuality to gain more and more of a foothold in society I am harming others in that I am allowing them to become more and more entrenched in a way of life that is contrary to true happiness.
Call me high and mighty for believing I know better then others what constitutes happiness, but surely by disagreeing with me you are in fact doing the same thing.
Having said all that I have to admit that I am not totally sure how to handle gay marriage/civil unions/etc.
I hate the fact that I am not totally commited on any course of action.
Scott you did a good job in laying out Mormon docterine regarding all this. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I'd also like to thank folks in this thread for being more civil then any forum I've ever observed.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually, Dag's posts in threads like this are fairly predictable.
Hatracker: I completely disagree with this belief/law/political statement, as I have just defined it.
Dag: I am not stating my opinion on the situation, but I think that by speaking out based solely on your gut-level opinion and not on clearly labeled facts or logical suppositions you are hurting your own case. Here's how you can go about making a strong case that will be tougher to ignore.
Hatracker: Why don't you agree with me? Defend the other side, now, so I can argue with you.
Dag: I haven't said what I believe. Only that arguing without reason will not accomplish anything and arguing without listening to the other side is not communicating.
Hatracker: I can't believe you're on the other side. Here's something you said that I can pick on. Defend my version of your opinion!
And then it devolves into line-by-line arguing.
I can't say I agree with everything Dag posts, but I always admire his efforts to bring the argument around to one that might actually acomplish something.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Claiming I said that "might makes right"
Err...I never did this.
I'm sorry, I summarized imprecisely: (Edit: the apology looks snarky to me. It's not intended to be so.)
quote:Thus, we set up a system where correctness makes right as opposed to the very different one of might makes right that you seem to be saying that it really is.
Saying that I said the system is one of "might makes right" is not recouching. It's extrapolating. A lot.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "My rights end at the tip of your nose type of things" doesn't justify 1) employment discrimination laws,
Which is why those are wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 2) laws banning the cruel treatment of animals,
Which is why those are wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: or 3) suicide laws.
Which is why those are wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lisa, I was using that to demonstrate common laws based on other premises. I doubt this is the thread to discuss them fully in.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Correct. Accordingly, I would be against a law that granted legal rights to the relationship specified.
So I'll ask again. Since the Noachide laws do not ban sex or relationships between women (go and ask your local rav if you don't believe me), how do you justify supporting a law that imposes sanctions on women who are not violating any Noachide laws?
And folks, Rebbetzin thread or not, if Rivka thinks that Noachides have any prohibition whatsoever that applies to lesbians, she's wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB, Again, let's assume the perspective that I think your religion is a bad one and is spreading harm. From the same set of premises that you just laid out, isn't it equivilent for me to advocate legal measures to prevent people from becoming/practicing LDS? After all, it makes it difficult for me to convert them to my true religion, thus making it so that they won't experience true happiness.
Also
quote:Call me high and mighty for believing I know better then others what constitutes happiness, but surely by disagreeing with me you are in fact doing the same thing.
that's completely untrue. I can say "You can't say that thse people aren't really happy." without saying that they are really happy.
This seems to be one of the big obstacles to this discussion. There's a big difference between active assertions and action ("They aren't really happy.", "They should be second class citizens.") and a refusal to do so ("Neither you nor I are in a place to say whether someone else is really happy.", "It's not my job nor the governments to do things like that.")
---
One other point that I think is important is that the lesbian couple you're breaking up in your example are very, very unlikely to become straight. The efforts in that direction have all been failures. So, it's not like you're setting them up to get into a real celestial marriage. You're breaking them up from a positive, committed relationship, destroying their family, so that they can become celibate.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Lisa, I was using that to demonstrate common laws based on other premises. I doubt this is the thread to discuss them fully in.
I don't think I was discussing them. I was simply making a comment. Your post carried the implication that those are obviously acceptable laws. I felt that by ignoring that statement, I would be tacitly agreeing with it. So I stated my disagreement. That's not the same as discussing them.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Heinlein said that laws begin whenever anyone does something someone else doesn't like.
While that sounds simplistic and obvious, the implications are horrible.
Think of the things you do every day that someone else doesn't like. Eating meat, driving, heading/cooling your home, heck, I'd wager we all have an internet addiction, computer games, tv, the music you like... All are ripe for laws because *someone* doesn't like it.
BB: The fact that no one knows what makes other people happy is the very basis of freedom because we *must* have the right to figure out what makes us happy. That's a tough enough problem to solve when it's your own head you have to sort through. There's no way you can solve it for someone else.
Pix
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't consider not changing current marriage laws to be "imposing sanctions" on anyone. Clearly you disagree. *shrug*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Your post carried the implication that those are obviously acceptable laws.
OK. The intended implication was merely that they exist.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Saying that I said the system is one of "might makes right" is not recouching. It's extrapolating. A lot.
For the third time, I didn't say that.
I extrapolated with the assumption that your response to me was at all relevant to the main point I was clearly making, but I did so in such a way to make it clear that this was my impression of what you were saying. I never claimed, depsite your frequent assertions to the contrary, that this is what you actually said. Rather, I gave my impression of what you said, which, given the assumption that you were responding while keeping in mind the things I was trying to say, didn't seem unreasonable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Saying that I said the system is one of "might makes right" is not recouching. It's extrapolating. A lot.
For the third time, I didn't say that.
I extrapolated with the assumption that your response to me was at all relevant to the main point I was clearly making, but I did so in such a way to make it clear that this was my impression of what you were saying. I never claimed, depsite your frequent assertions to the contrary, that this is what you actually said. Rather, I gave my impression of what you said, which, given the assumption that you were responding while keeping in mind the things I was trying to say, didn't seem unreasonable.
Did you say this?
quote:Thus, we set up a system where correctness makes right as opposed to the very different one of might makes right that you seem to be saying that it really is.
The seem doesn't make it any better. Stop the damn extrapolating. Is that clear enough for you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MrS: When two folks with opposing views live in a democracy, its impossible for both to get what they want. Just like it was impossible for slave holders and abolitionists to both get what they want. Trying to please both parties only made the situation worse.
If you honestly felt that Mormons were causing ill to society, you would be justified in supporting measure to supress them, I can give you that. Whether or not you are in fact right is an entirely different matter.
quote: I can say "You can't say that thse people aren't really happy." without saying that they are really happy.
You could, but your admiting that you have no specific reason to disagree with me.
quote: One other point that I think is important is that the lesbian couple you're breaking up in your example are very, very unlikely to become straight. The efforts in that direction have all been failures. So, it's not like you're setting them up to get into a real celestial marriage. You're breaking them up from a positive, committed relationship, destroying their family, so that they can become celibate.
Thats your opinion, I think its sweepingly hasty in judgement. I seriously doubt you have extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal. For me to agree with you I would have to actively disagree with what I honestly believe is true. That human beings can become whatever they choose to be. You can believe that its impossible for any homosexual to cultivate feelings of attraction towards members of the opposite gender, and I would simply disagree with you.
Pix: I don't think our government was founded on that idea at all. The government frequently makes laws that make many people angry and upset as it goes against their definition of what makes mankind happy. Back to slavery, slave holders honestly felt there was nothing but ruin ahead of them were they to give up slavery. Could you have convinced them of the truthes of the industrial revolution before it existed? The government simply ended slavery after the civil war, there was no vote on the matter that the southerners could actively participate in. If they wanted to rejoin the union, slavery had to go.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
You're certainly welcome to your opinion on such things, but it's probably not safe to assume that others share it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Chris, I take a pretty strong exception to your description if it is intended to include me. The thing you have the random Hatracker say isn't anything like what I say.
I also want to point out that it's often that type of interaction that bugs me about Dag. A lot of the time, he'll do that to someone like Syn and it comes off as bullying to me.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
Christians do not gauge a laws importance based on that completely unrelated fact of how often New Testament writers mention it. The New Testament is not anywhere close to being a comprehensive collection of all that God has said to people. The authors are the first to say so "If all that Jesus said and did were written, I suppose there would not be room enough in the world to hold the books that could be written."
Its not right to say "Homosexuality is mentioned thrice in the New Testament while adultery is mentioned 20 times. Therefore homosexuality is only 1/5th as bad as adultery. Simply read the language of the authors in regards to the sin. Most writers of the NT are pretty good at saying how God feels about an offense. You can also do alittle thinking of your own and decide for yourself whether the effects of dishonesty are as bad as the effects of murder.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Defend my version of your opinion!
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: If you honestly felt that Mormons were causing ill to society, you would be justified in supporting measure to supress them, I can give you that.
I don't see how you can think this would be justified. Assuming you truly believe this would be justified, when do civil liberties ever matter?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It was an overblown gestalt, a parody of several instances I've observed, and wasn't meant to represent any one person or even just this thread.
But it has to be understood that Dag is a lawyer, and he tends to approach these things like he's preparing to argue them before a court. Arguments that ignore or strawman the opposition's actual positions are weak, ineffectual, good only for rousing the people who already agree. Arguments that bite, that understand the other position and skillfully pinpoint the weaknesses there (if there are any) while acknowledging the valid points that might exist are much trickier to do and make lousy sound bites but they had the advantage of maybe actually convincing someone, and he's trying to demonstrate how to do just that.
And now I'll stop cheerleading him, and stress that this is my interpretation of his posts and not necessarily his own position about them.
To the tone of the thread:
Many people have, to them, excellent reasons why homosexual relationships should not be recognized by the state. Rather than assuming those reasons are all prejudicial or based on archaic religious references without any further reasoning involved and then dismissing them, why not dig into why so many people believe this and then marshall your arguments to counter it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
Christians do not gauge a laws importance based on that completely unrelated fact of how often New Testament writers mention it. The New Testament is not anywhere close to being a comprehensive collection of all that God has said to people. The authors are the first to say so "If all that Jesus said and did were written, I suppose there would not be room enough in the world to hold the books that could be written."
Its not right to say "Homosexuality is mentioned thrice in the New Testament while adultery is mentioned 20 times. Therefore homosexuality is only 1/5th as bad as adultery. Simply read the language of the authors in regards to the sin. Most writers of the NT are pretty good at saying how God feels about an offense. You can also do alittle thinking of your own and decide for yourself whether the effects of dishonesty are as bad as the effects of murder.
It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote: If you honestly felt that Mormons were causing ill to society, you would be justified in supporting measure to supress them, I can give you that.
I don't see how you can think this would be justified. Assuming you truly believe this would be justified, when do civil liberties ever matter?
In a democracy? So far as the ballet box agrees. Principles that discourage the tyranny of the majority do not altogether prevent it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
Christians do not gauge a laws importance based on that completely unrelated fact of how often New Testament writers mention it. The New Testament is not anywhere close to being a comprehensive collection of all that God has said to people. The authors are the first to say so "If all that Jesus said and did were written, I suppose there would not be room enough in the world to hold the books that could be written."
Its not right to say "Homosexuality is mentioned thrice in the New Testament while adultery is mentioned 20 times. Therefore homosexuality is only 1/5th as bad as adultery. Simply read the language of the authors in regards to the sin. Most writers of the NT are pretty good at saying how God feels about an offense. You can also do alittle thinking of your own and decide for yourself whether the effects of dishonesty are as bad as the effects of murder.
It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
Thats completely your opinion of Paul's feelings. Don't forget you are arguing with a Mormon. We believe God himself did not assemble Bible. Its a product of what men deemed as authentic, therefore we believe it so far as it is translated correctly. The men who put it together did a really good job, but not a good enough job that disagreement is not widespread. Add the Book of Mormon and modern day revelation and for Mormons the question of homosexuality is pretty easy to understand. Though that might be an over simplification; there are self described Mormons who believe the prophet is out of touch with God specifically on the gay issue.
I could throw Paul right back at you with a slant on pro marriage. There would not be much point. People have debated the NT's message for centuries.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
When you're discussing this with a bunch of Mormons, you have to take into account that we don't piece our beliefs together by exclusively reading the New Testament. We believe in modern prophecy, which to us is every bit as valid a source of doctrine as ancient scripture
quote:So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
So are you upset that in a thread about gay marriage, the participants in the discussion are talking exclusively about gay marriage? How would we maintain our focus in the conversation if we had to continually change the subject to prove we cared about other things?
If you listen to an LDS General Conference, aimed at members of the Church, I guarantee you'll find way more exhortations to keep the Sabbath holy than condemnations of gay marriage. If you start a thread about it, you'll be shocked to learn that we all have opinions about that, too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
Thats completely your opinion of Paul's feelings. Don't forget you are arguing with a Mormon. We believe God himself did not assemble Bible. Its a product of what men deemed as authentic, therefore we believe it so far as it is translated correctly. The men who put it together did a really good job, but not a good enough job that disagreement is not widespread. Add the Book of Mormon and modern day revelation and for Mormons the question of homosexuality is pretty easy to understand. Though that might be an over simplification; there are self described Mormons who believe the prophet is out of touch with God specifically on the gay issue.
I could throw Paul right back at you with a slant on pro marriage. There would not be much point. People have debated the NT's message for centuries. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Don't forget you are talking to a Catholic. We don't believe that God assembled the Bible either. We do still think that, understood within it's context, it has some authority. Is it not that important for Mormons? Is it superseded by the BoM and personal revelation?
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
First and foremost, let me put this concept into th mix -
"That which is immoral does not necessarily have to be illegal, and that which is illegal does not necessarily have to be immoral."
It is possible to commit a legal crime yet break no moral law, just as it is eqully possible to break a moral law without commiting a legal crime.
That is why there needs to be a separation of church and state. That is why the government is forbidden from any oppressive or controlling regulation of religion, and that is equally why religion should not force it's veiw on the majority EVEN IF that particular religion is itself a majority.
For example, I think abortion is immoral, but I also think it should be legal within reasonable context. It is not my duty to choose for you, that is between you and your conscience. But it is even more so your duty to accept responsibility for your actions, and I believe that beyond a certain point, regardless of your desire in the moment, you have made a long term choice that can't be rescinded.
So, morality and legality do overlap, but only when the legality (or lack there of) reaches a level where an innocent third party is so clearly and egregiously harmed that no person of clear religious or non-religious conscience can stand by and allow it.
I don't think gay marriage meets this test. I don't think some vague self-preceived unspecific implication that society might be harmed, or that some abstract social institution might be harm is enough.
Now we jump way back to the beginning of this thread to the comments by Samarkand on Civil Unions.
I now point out that all marriages are civil union, or at least all LEGAL marriages are nothing but civil unions. What you do in church is irrelevant to whether you are legally married on not. To become legally married you must file and register at the court house, you must purchase a license, that license must be certified and validated by a legally authorizing party and place on file in the public records. Then and only then does any married couple gain the legal benefits AND RESPONSIBILITIES of marriage.
It is just that in our mostly Christian society, we have opted to allow clergy (among others) to be the legal authority that certifies and validates a marriage, but that is a purely optional arrangement.
It stems back to the time when most public records for remote frontier communities were kept by the church. It recorded births, death, and marriages, and the law considered those private recording to stand as public records since no other record or validation was available. Yet, that is really just a matter of convenience, that records were there so why not use them.
So, legal marriage as a matter of law, rights, and responsibilities is completely divorced from religion. In fact, you don't even need a wedding; get a judge or other authorized official to sign your documents, and you are married.
Now it is certainly possible to have a purely spiritual non-legal marriage. That is, to be married in a church without government sanction, documentation, or certification. In which case, you gain no legal rights or responsibility as a result of such a marriage.
Though if the marriage last long enough and only in certain states, the concept of 'common law marriage' does come into play but only for hetrosexual couples.
So, my point is that all legal marriages are nothing but civil unions, which most people choose to further have sanctified by their church, but legally, that action of the church has no authority to legitimise the marriage unless all other legal governmental aspect are also met.
It is by choice of society and societal convention that we accept the signature of a priest (or rabbi or minister) as a certifying and legally binding authority. I suspect this is based on the preceived moral character of the minister rather than any legally binding power or authority.
So, simply put, all legal marriages are civil unions, and it is the civil union aspect that grants the right and demands the responsibilities that come with marriage.
Legally, religion and gender are irrelevant, or at least should be so. It is the willingness of the parties to accept the rights and even more so accept the responsibilities that come with legally registering their coupling.
At to whether gay unions will undermine the foundation of 'marriage', I think today statistics prove the the greatest threat to marriage and family in not the desire of same sex couples to seek out those rights and responsibilities, but the casual and uncommited attitude of opposite sex couples who are happy to have the rights, but shun the responsibilities, and don't take the commitment aspect seriously. In short, hetrosexuals are the greatest threat to marriage and family that I see in the world today.
You would do a lot more to prop up the institutions of marriage and family by confronting the failings of hetrosexual couples rather than worrying about the social complexities of same sex couples.
This really is a matter of law and civil rights; this is one area where preceived morality should not dictate law because there is no clear or imminent pending implication of true harm.
How does that old sports saying go...?
"No harm, no foul."
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Don't forget you are talking to a Catholic. We don't believe that God assembled the Bible either. We do still think that, understood within it's context, it has some authority. Is it not that important for Mormons? Is it superseded by the BoM and personal revelation?
Not superceded. Equal to. But that means that the lack of something in the New Testament doesn't mean that Mormons shouldn't take it seriously. There are a lot of other sources we can also turn to that may very well say a whole lot about a given subject.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It remains that Jesus is not recorded as having ever said anything about it. It is reasonable to assume that, if it were important, He would have and somebody would have made sure it got written down. Paul mentions it twice - both in the context of a secular life in conflict with a spiritual one. And he would rather people not have sex or even get married at all (unless the only option was to burn). Forming celestial familes would have been a horrifying concept for Paul.
So again, why are we concerned with this particular "sin" when we aren't so concerned about whether people honor their parents or keep the Sabbath? For example.
Thats completely your opinion of Paul's feelings. Don't forget you are arguing with a Mormon. We believe God himself did not assemble Bible. Its a product of what men deemed as authentic, therefore we believe it so far as it is translated correctly. The men who put it together did a really good job, but not a good enough job that disagreement is not widespread. Add the Book of Mormon and modern day revelation and for Mormons the question of homosexuality is pretty easy to understand. Though that might be an over simplification; there are self described Mormons who believe the prophet is out of touch with God specifically on the gay issue.
I could throw Paul right back at you with a slant on pro marriage. There would not be much point. People have debated the NT's message for centuries.
quote:Don't forget you are talking to a Catholic. We don't believe that God assembled the Bible either. We do still think that, understood within it's context, it has some authority. Is it not that important for Mormons? Is it superseded by the BoM and personal revelation?
Certainly not. We ignore the mistakes in the Bible that have been perpetrated by translators and scribes with an agenda, modern revelation has points many of these mistakes out.
We consider the BOM more reliable purely for this reason alone:
It was written by prophets, translated by a prophet, and given to people to read. Much less room for error. By cross referencing it with the Bible, both books make far more sense.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: In a democracy? So far as the ballet box agrees. Principles that discourage the tyranny of the majority do not altogether prevent it.
I'm not asking about in a democracy, I'm asking about when do civil liberties matter to you since you said it would be perfectly justified for somebody to try to oppress you if they thought you were bad for society.
Further, we do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a Constitutional Democracy. There are limits on the tyranny of the majority. When the majority goes too far, as dictated by the Constitution, the Courts can intervene. In the case of legally trying to supress Mormons, I think the Courts would instantly intervene. I find it shocking that you seem to be saying people that don't like you should be able to oppress you. If I am mischaracterizing you, please let me know.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: Our government was founded on the principle of Liberty as described by Mill and Locke and interpreted by Jefferson (and our other founding fathers) into our Declaration of Independance and Constitution.
Here's an excessively long (sorry) passage from Mill's On Liberty. One of the seeds of thought that grew into our nation.
quote: SUCH being the reasons which make it imperative that human beings should be free to form opinions, and to express their opinions without reserve; and such the baneful consequences to the intellectual, and through that to the moral nature of man, unless this liberty is either conceded, or asserted in spite of prohibition; let us next examine whether the same reasons do not require that men should be free to act upon their opinions—to carry these out in their lives, without hindrance, either physical or moral, from their fellow-men, so long as it is at their own risk and peril. This last proviso is of course indispensable. No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions. On the contrary, even opinions lose their immunity, when the circumstances in which they are expressed are such as to constitute their expression a positive instigation to some mischievous act. An opinion that corn-dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. Acts of whatever kind, which, without justifiable cause, do harm to others, may be, and in the more important cases absolutely require to be, controlled by the unfavourable sentiments, and, when needful, by the active interference of mankind. The liberty of the individual must be thus far limited; he must not make himself a nuisance to other people. But if he refrains from molesting others in what concerns them, and merely acts according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself, the same reasons which show that opinion should be free, prove also that he should be allowed, without molestation, to carry his opinions into practice at his own cost. That mankind are not infallible; that their truths, for the most part, are only half-truths; that unity of opinion, unless resulting from the fullest and freest comparison of opposite opinions, is not desirable, and diversity not an evil, but a good, until mankind are much more capable than at present of recognizing all sides of the truth, are principles applicable to men's modes of action, not less than to their opinions. As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others; and that the worth of different modes of life should be proved practically, when any one thinks fit to try them. It is desirable, in short, that in things which do not primarily concern others, individuality should assert itself. Where, not the person's own character, but the traditions of customs of other people are the rule of conduct, there is wanting one of the principal ingredients of human happiness, and quite the chief ingredient of individual and social progress.
As an addendum, I would like to add that Mill should use more paragraph breaks.
Pix
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
BTW, although I agree that the separation of church and state is an important principle to be analyzed in this debate, I just want to clarify something: there is almost zero chance that the First Amendment would actually be used in the legal analysis by a court reviewing restrictions on same sex marriage. I don't know that anyone here thinks that, but some people do, so I thought I'd mention it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Looks like I've hit the "personal revelation" wall. Not much to do about that.
Other Christians? Any anti-civil union who aren't basing their arguments on the BoM or the personal revelation of th Mormon leadership?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Its not right to say "Homosexuality is mentioned thrice in the New Testament while adultery is mentioned 20 times. Therefore homosexuality is only 1/5th as bad as adultery.
Without taking any position on the actual point you are making, let me just mention that 1/5 is a really bad approximation to 3/20. 1/7 is a much better one.
quote:Simply read the language of the authors in regards to the sin. Most writers of the NT are pretty good at saying how God feels about an offense. You can also do alittle thinking of your own and decide for yourself whether the effects of dishonesty are as bad as the effects of murder.
Aren't you the one who found that thinking for yourself led to Bad Things, while following the precepts of the BoM led to Good Things? You can't have it both ways.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: The second-- if I had been of voting age when the blue laws were repealed, I would have voted to keep them in place. ALTHOUGH... now that I think about it, I remember rivka or someone on this site gave examples of how the blue laws hurt non-Christian businesses. I'd have to review the discussion again...
Again-- for reasons I think are clear enough in my post above-- I don't give that particular society-vs-religion element as much weight as I do the same sex marriage one.
Why not? Certainly the Sabbath laws and other of the "top ten" should carry as much weight as sex laws that are hardly mentioned in the New Testament - and not at all in the Gospels.
I believe if you go back to the first page, Scott detailed why Mormons believe what they do. It had little to do with NT doctrine. If you carefully read what Mormons believe their eternal purpose is, then you may see why Sabbath breaking might not carry as much weight than marriage issues- whether they be adultury, homosexual marriage, or whatever. Remember, Scott was not trying to argue theology with a Catholic, rather he was simply trying to explain his beliefs.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Okay. Looks like I've hit the "personal revelation" wall. Not much to do about that.
Coming from someone who routinely puts up a 'personal choice' wall, I find this supremely ironic.
Edit : No, wait a minute, I've got you confused with katharina, haven't I? People shouldn't have nicks starting with the same letter, it's confusing.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Dag, what do you think would come into a legal analysis of same sex marriage? Just curious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I try not to let my personal faith choice limit the freedoms of others to marry who they will.
And why ironic? Acknowledging that there is no point in arguing someone out of it is something I routinely try to tell you.
Ah...I see your edit. Less confusing than it would be if we used our actual names. And despite the initial initial, I rarely confuse you with katherina. Almost never.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We consider the BOM more reliable purely for this reason alone:
It was written by prophets, translated by a prophet, and given to people to read. Much less room for error. By cross referencing it with the Bible, both books make far more sense.
I'm not sure what the word "purely" means in this context, but there are other reasons the Book of Mormon is more reliable.
One is that most of the Book of Mormon was written primarily with the intention of being read by people today, as opposed to the books of the New Testament, which were written primarily for the people back then.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kmb, just for reference, Mormons tend to think of the phrase "personal revelation" as applying to individual answers to prayers, which are private, and are not binding on other people. A Mormon arguing a position in a thread like this based on his own "personal revelation" would not be taken seriously even on a Mormon-only bulletin board, because no one else would feel the slightest inclination to change their opinion based on a revelation claimed by some random other Mormon.
The authority of the prophets to receive revelation that is equal to scripture, and direct the church accordingly, is a different, and more powerful part of our faith. We usually refer to that as "modern prophecy" or other, similar terms.
Just a point of clarification, not a disagreement Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I love Mill Pix. I've read the entirety of On Liberty and I CAN see how it has influenced our government. But the government makes decisions that are against popular opinion quite often. Even one instance demonstrates that the will of the people does not always reign supreme in the short run.
Amanecer: Whats the point of dicussing a civil liberty if we are not doing so within the context of the world we live in? If we lived in a theocracy where God himself ruled personally and literally did everything right, we wouldnt NEED civil liberties, though we could always articulate the perfect logic behind a decision God made, we for all intents and purposes would always be content to do things as He saw fit to do them, hence no liberties. The only reason you would insist on liberties in that scenario is if you wanted to plot a course contrary to God's perfect way, in which case you would be wrong by definition and would cease to live in that society.
But we live in a democracy and so the ballet box prevails. Mormons got booted out of Missouri and Illinois because they were seen as a menace that needed expulsion, the government did nothing to stop it, and at some levels assisted the folks who insisted the Mormons be kicked out.
Not saying who was right in this instance only that if enough people want something it will be done.
Enough people think the bill of rights is a good thing, and thats why it will isnt' being ammended. If enough people thought it had mistakes, eventually leaders with that opinion would be elected and judges with that opinion would sit on the supreme court, and the document would be corrected.
The ballot box really does reign supreme.
quote: Further, we do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a Constitutional Democracy. There are limmits on the tyranny of the majority. When the majority goes too far, as dictated by the Constitution, the Courts can intervene. In the case of legally trying to supress Mormons, I think the Courts would instantly intervene. I find it shocking that you seem to be saying people that don't like you should be able to oppress you. If I am mischaracterizing you, please let me know.
There are retardents to the tyranny of the majority, but there is NOT a true inpenetrable barrier. As stated above I might not think it was right for folks to kick the Mormons out of their house and home, to kill their men, rape their women, molest their children, but in a democracy the will of the people if strong enough WILL prevail. Its not a question of moral truth, its a question of how things work in a democracy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, what do you think would come into a legal analysis of same sex marriage? Just curious.
No time to answer fully now, but the equal protection clause would clearly come in. The substantive due process clause might also come in.
Very briefly, substantive due process analysis focuses on whether the government has a good enoug reason for restricting liberty. The equal protection analysis focuses on whether the government has a good enough reason for treating people differently.
The states that have ruled in favor of civil unions or gay marriage have relied on state constitutional clauses. VT relied on a common or equal benefits clause, which is subtly different than equal protection.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for the clarification, Puppy. But the revelations of your prophets hold no more (or less) weight with me than the revelations of anybody else.
Same goes for the Pope, in case you ask (since I have to go now.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: I'm pretty mad at myself for botching up that math. As much as I dislike mathematics, thats just pathetic.
My statement about doing some thinking of your own was not a means to establish ACTUAL docterine, just a way for you yourself to form an opinion. Obviously if your view of situation directly contradicts the scriptures, you figure out who is in the wrong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Ah...I see your edit. Less confusing than it would be if we used our actual names. And despite the initial initial, I rarely confuse you with katherina. Almost never.
'K' is clearly different from 'k', so why would you? I mean, if you considered them to be the same, then the number of unique-first-letter nicks would be reduced by a factor of two! Can't have that!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:We consider the BOM more reliable purely for this reason alone:
It was written by prophets, translated by a prophet, and given to people to read. Much less room for error. By cross referencing it with the Bible, both books make far more sense.
I'm not sure what the word "purely" means in this context, but there are other reasons the Book of Mormon is more reliable.
One is that most of the Book of Mormon was written primarily with the intention of being read by people today, as opposed to the books of the New Testament, which were written primarily for the people back then.
Sorry for the double post. You are probably right "Purely" does not really fit as there is more then one reason the BOM exists.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM: I'm pretty mad at myself for botching up that math. As much as I dislike mathematics, thats just pathetic.
You didn't mess it up that badly. I just thought you were rounding to 4/20 instead of 3/21...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya coulda said 15%...
But then, any sin makes you imperfect and unfit for the Kingdom of God. Only through Jesus Christ's perfect sacrifice may you enter.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Whats the point of dicussing a civil liberty if we are not doing so within the context of the world we live in?
I was asking about your personal opinion about what limits we should try to place on majority rule, which you seem to not be responding to.
You seem to be seeking out extreme cases such as the Mormons in Missouri and asserting that is the norm and there's nothing we can do about it. I think this is a wrong way to approach it. What happened in Missouri was NOT justified. Nobody now feels that it was. Missouri even apologized. That extremes happen does not mean that we should stop trying to moderate them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:
quote: Whats the point of dicussing a civil liberty if we are not doing so within the context of the world we live in?
I was asking about your personal opinion about what limits we should try to place on majority rule, which you seem to not be responding to.
You seem to be seeking out extreme cases such as the Mormons in Missouri and asserting that is the norm and there's nothing we can do about it. I think this is a wrong way to approach it. What happened in Missouri was NOT justified. Nobody now feels that it was. Missouri even apologized. That extremes happen does not mean that we should stop trying to moderate them.
Extreme cases? If you wanted to look around for situations of injustice where the government backed down because of popular opinion you would find oogles.
If you want to argue that the logic behind my rationale for voting a certain way is flawed, I am willing to discuss that possibility. But when people are arguing "Our country is built on sound moral principles, and the people do not control those principles" I will just have to disagree.
Ditto for telling people who base the opinions partially within religion or even mostly on religion that they do not have the right to vote for those opinions.
I think the laws we live under today are an extension of just how strong the population feels about each point.
I think the retardants that we have built to supress tyranny of the majority are adequate as is.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Call me high and mighty for believing I know better then others what constitutes happiness, but surely by disagreeing with me you are in fact doing the same thing.
A point on this. The difference, I think, is that in your case you are telling others what will make them happy. Whereas, in the case at hand, proponents of SSM aren't trying to tell you how you would be happy.
-Bok
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
I think that's an excellent point, Bokonon.
To me, consensual adult sex, regardless of the gender, number, age (as long as legal) etc. is not something to be legislated. For many people who object to SSM, it seems that the sexual act is what they object to. I think that it's perfectly ok for religions or individuals to oppose consensual sexual acts of any kind, but it's not ok to legislate against them. No substantial (if any) harm is being done anyone beyond those choosing to engage in the act, assuming even they are being harmed.
Please note that I believe extramarital sex is different - in that case both parties have entered into a contract, one of the stipulations of which is fidelity. Consensual sex between one member of that pair and someone outside that pair is therefore a breach of contract.
Beyond an objection to the act itself, then, the principal objection is to same sex couples acting in other ways as couples - that is, taking care of each other, making commitments, pooling finances, raising children togther, etc. Again, if this isn't something you like the idea or reality of, then by all means exclude these people from your places or worship, homes, etc. However, in a democracy that permits an 18 year old girl and a 94 year old man to marry, as well as cross-religious couples, trans-racial couples, people who are trying to get citizenship, etc., it baffles me that anyone would say that same sex couples are not being discriminated against as a special group when they are denied basic rights which other couples can enjoy.
Feel free to convert people to your set of beliefs, or try to get them to join Exodus or whatever, but don't deny people rights.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But we live in a democracy and so the ballet box prevails. Mormons got booted out of Missouri and Illinois because they were seen as a menace that needed expulsion, the government did nothing to stop it, and at some levels assisted the folks who insisted the Mormons be kicked out.
First, I doubt there was a democratic vote to boot the Mormon's out of Missouri (I could be wrong though). Second, we are a democracy with a set of semi-permanent "rules" that allow the courts to rightfully prevail over the ballot box, where one conflicts with the other. Now, that doesn't mean it always works as intended, but that doesn't mean we should ignore its intention.
-- That's what gets me about the tactic of some saying that the court's ruling usurps democratic power. To that I say, "Duh." That's been one of the foundational points of our systems of appeal and judicial review. To argue against them is treacherous, and likely leads to unintended side effects one wouldn't want or expect. Echoes of The Magician's Apprentice, no?
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Pix, I don't feel dogpiled... should I?
Something you (Pixiest) said earlier bugged me a bit-- about how it was useless arguing with me, because I wouldn't change my mind. You were right.
I didn't enter this debate to change anyone's mind. (Except maybe Rabbit's) I'm interested in standing up for what I believe-- not necessarily converting anyone to those beliefs.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
BlackBlade,
I feel like we're talking past each other. You responded to Squicky's comment about oppressing Mormons by saying it would be justified. This is the issue that concerns me. I do not think it is justified to oppress a group of people period. I would even venture to guess that most people on the no SSM side would agree with this, but they don’t feel that not letting a gay couple get married is oppression. I can understand that reasoning. What I don’t understand is you saying that it’s ok to oppress a group of people, your own group of people specifically, if the majority thinks they’re harmful to society. This sounds like might is right. I understand that sometimes it happens that way despite our efforts to not make it so. The comment that threw me was you describing the action as “justified.” Could you explain how that would be just by your way of thinking?
Scott, I think me and one or two other people asked questions of you within a few posts of each other, making it possibly seem like a dogpile.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Please note that I believe extramarital sex is different - in that case both parties have entered into a contract, one of the stipulations of which is fidelity.
Small correction. Extramarital sex is all sex that is not within the confines of marriage. You don't have to be married to have extramarital sex.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
I would call that premarital, but the correction stands if that is common (or even occasional) usage.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Premarital sex is a subset of extramarital sex.
Some people object to the term premarital, though, as it carries with it the implication that they will eventually get married.
extra = outside of marital = marriage
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:To me, consensual adult sex, regardless of the gender, number, age (as long as legal) etc. is not something to be legislated
That struck me as amusing.
Anyway, dear goodness this thread exploded a heck of a lot faster than I would've thought. Much of it seems a mirror of a similar thread that was posted on, on the other side for a week or two before falling by the wayside. I read most of this thread but breezed over some of it for the sake of speed, so if I step on any toes let me know, but:
Scott R -
I totally respect your point of view, and though I think your wrong, and though it makes me feel a little sick to say, I even respect your right to vote what I believe to be Anti-American and Anti-Constitutional beliefs into law, as your democratic American right (how's that for a hodgepodge of possibly oxymorons?).
But I get antsy when you start talking about turning "God's Law" into "US Law." That has been used to justify far too many atrocities in the world before. I believe laws should be set forth to protect society, to ensure the success of the society and to ensure as many personal freedoms as possibly (ironically something Republicans USED TO subscribe to). While I personally would never get up in arms over this specific subject, I wouldn't blame homosexuals for doing it.
The idea of a religious majority changing the constitution of a secular nation to make into almost unchangeable law their religious views, and to effectively relegate the lifestyle of a minority to second class status is wrong to me. The allusions between this and what goes on in hardcore Islamic countires is very easy to draw, and it's a slippery slope once the first step is taken.
Aside from Scott, one of my biggest problem with outlawing same sex marriage is that most of the things that same sex couples from want civil unions were created originally by a secular state, they are things guaranteed by the secular state, and they are things the secular state alone has control over. God in the Bible never said anything about social security benefits, He never said anything about hospital visitation rights, or tax law, or about making medical decisions for loved ones in peril.
So why is this very recent version of what a marriage involves treated as though it were prescribed by God? Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and God. That's it. You take vows that are prescribed for you from your religion, and the secular state gives you the rest. Trying to fold those secular rights into religious rights seems utterly silly to me, and I have no idea where it comes from that it needs to be defended as such.
Since I haven't seen much else used as an attack on SSM, I'll leave my other arguments out, but I am curious about the things I've mentioned, and I'm curious about previous questions asked to opponents of SSM marriage on religious grounds about how they feel about Sharia law in Islamic states.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the secular state gives you the rest. Trying to fold those secular rights into religious rights seems utterly silly to me, and I have no idea where it comes from that it needs to be defended as such.
This is a very good point, Lyrhawn.
For my part, I'm not concerned about giving homosexual couples the ability to share insurance benefits (I support nationalized health care for everyone anyway), the right to hospital visits, or the right to make medical decisions for their partner. Adoption of non-biological children DOES bother me a bit; but I believe homosexuals can be as sterling parents as anyone.
Most of those "rights" can be obtained legally by homosexual couples right now. I understand that it's not as convenient as a simple trip to the courthouse.
What does my objection stem from, then? If I'm not opposed to secular "rights" (shared health care, etc) why should I care about a civil union?
It comes back to the idea of supporting, through my vote/non-vote, something that I think is sinful. In the 2004 election, I wrote in my vote for President of the US rather than cast a vote for a man whose ideals I disagree with (Kerry), or for the candidate who had already proved himself untrustworthy (Bush). It wasn't enough to NOT vote at all-- I felt that I had to make an appearance, and raise a small voice against what I felt was immoral governance.
This is similar. I don't believe homosexual unions pose a threat to individual marriages. I do believe that social approbation through legitimization of homosexual unions will make the sin of homosexual behavior more accessible; it will make it more difficult to support, justify, and teach the will of God for family life, because another option is being shown as just as acceptable in wider society.
I DO think that homosexual unions will be nationally recognized in the near future. I think that there's enough cultural, philosophical and legal weight behind the claims to push (or convince) our courts into making the choice to allow homosexual marriage.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I do believe that social approbation through legitimization of homosexual unions will make the sin of homosexual behavior more accessible
This assumes that homosexuality is a choice.
This may have been brought up before, but how does everyone stand on that? I don't want to start a whole new argument, but I'm curious.
If it could be proved that homosexuality was not a choice, would its sinfulness be more, less or the same? Would you be more likely to support (or at least allow) same sex marriage if it were proved that it wasn't a choice?
This is a hypothetical, at least as far as we can prove now. And I know a lot of you hate answering hypotheticals. But humor me, please. Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The argument is that even if the inclination is in-born, the act is always a choice.
-Bok
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
What Bok said.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Either answer won't sway the non-supporters on the issue. If it is proven scientifically that homosexuality is not a choice, then those who don't support it will call it a disease (many do already).
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
As a homosexual, I find the whole "choice" vs "born-that-way" arguement distasteful in the extreme. Why? Because it simply can't be framed in a way that doesn't imply victimhood and "Oh, but we can't help it."
I don't care if I was "born this way", or if other circumstances beyond my control (or not) created the specific combination of thoughts, desires, and feelings that I call "me". The point is that I AM, and what I am deserves equal treatment under law.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Come to think of it, all of this fighting with the religious folk about convincing them to not vote/change their vote is rather pointless.
If you really want to make a difference talk to what I believe to be the true majority. "Heteros" like me who support Gay marriage (or fall in the middle somewhere), but may not want to be bothered to vote in the first place (or in many cases just don't care enough to).
That is the case with a lot of people I talk to. They just don't care. Those are the ones we should be encouraging to vote.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think all of this fighting hasn't been about changing people's votes, it's just about fighting to see who is correct in their beliefs.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I would not consider this thread to be full of fighting. I can't think of anybody being all that antagonistic. Discussion that leads to understanding is an admirable goal in my mind.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: BlackBlade,
I feel like we're talking past each other. You responded to Squicky's comment about oppressing Mormons by saying it would be justified. This is the issue that concerns me. I do not think it is justified to oppress a group of people period. I would even venture to guess that most people on the no SSM side would agree with this, but they don’t feel that not letting a gay couple get married is oppression. I can understand that reasoning. What I don’t understand is you saying that it’s ok to oppress a group of people, your own group of people specifically, if the majority thinks they’re harmful to society. This sounds like might is right. I understand that sometimes it happens that way despite our efforts to not make it so. The comment that threw me was you describing the action as “justified.” Could you explain how that would be just by your way of thinking?
Scott, I think me and one or two other people asked questions of you within a few posts of each other, making it possibly seem like a dogpile.
Might doesnt MAKE right but in this country at least might is what ends up happening.
The Book of Mormon does a pretty good job describing my feelings on this topic. The scripture describes the state of affairs for a group of people who also believed in democratically selecting their judges, but the judges were able to act independantly of the people, and could only be impeached by a group of lower judges.
Helaman 5:2 "2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted."
Incidentally the chief judge steps down rather then trying to fight the voice of the mob and goes himself amongst the people trying to persuade them to turn back to righteousness. He didn't say "Well the evil people ought not to vote" or "I'm going to legislate my own opinion and make it stick because the tyranny of the majority must be stopped."
If the voice of the people wants gay marriage, I will certainly abide by that. I am a part of the voice of the people, and my particular feelings lean towards discouraging patterns of behavior that I find incorrect. Or at the very least discouraging the government from cultivating them.
I only ask that I be allowed to disagree with homosexuality and to be allowed to vote accordingly.
But perhaps its pointless that I post anyway seeing as how I am not commited to any course of action. I just think that for me you will get further discussing with me why homosexuality is not wrong, or will not in any excessive way harm anybody, rather then telling me I ought not to vote as I believe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I just think that for me you will get further discussing with me why homosexuality is not wrong, or will not in any excessive way harm anybody...
Are those two requests equivalent?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I just think that for me you will get further discussing with me why homosexuality is not wrong, or will not in any excessive way harm anybody, rather then telling me I ought not to vote as I believe.
Where have I told you, or anybody else, to not vote as you believe? I have not said that and I do not believe that. In fact, I don't think I've even discussed homosexuality with you. I've tried to discuss your comments about it being just to oppress people, but to no avail.
Your scriptural reference only confuses me further. The person that you herald did not use the law to try and force his view on others. Instead, he tried to convince them personally. I fail to see the connection between that and the justice of oppression.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Scott R -
Alright I see your point there.
I'm curious though, do you support Anti-Gay legislation because it is a discouragement to homosexuality, or do you do it because you think God's law should be made into public law? Do you support more Biblical Law (or God's Law) being made into national public law instead of the current secular system we have in place?
Also, and this is just me being curious, you have to realize that not allowing same sex unions isn't going to dissuade anyone from being gay if they are already. All it does is force them to live their life in less happiness than they otherwise would have had. So, either you don't believe that, and you really think that not allow SSM is going to turn gay people straight (hasn't really worked well in the last couple hundred years, to say nothing of the last three decades), or you think it is okay to punish these people for their beliefs. Where does the Bible come down on persecution?
And for Dag -
What would happen if there was a religion in the US that supported same sex marriages? Say Catholicism did an about face and it's okay now (yeah I know, NEVER in a million years), but all of a sudden gay Catholics can get married. Does the Constitution guarantee them the right do to so legally? Would laws that make it impossible for them to do so count as religious persecution?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tom: No they are not, they are two seperate points.
Amanecer: Sorry I sorta responded to you but melded the post to address what some people were saying in the first few pages of this thread. I should have clarified where I was speaking to you.
The scriptural reference is valid as the judge recognized that the will of the people prevailed and so he went amongst them seeking to change opinions. As I said before he didn't tell the evil people they had no right to vote their opinions. But its also useful in that it articulates again my belief that the will of the people does prevail, not that the will of the people is always right, but I just do not think there is any perfect way to have a democracy but check the people when they want something that is bad. I accept the reality of the situation in that my feelings do not always become law, but sometimes they do, and in direct opposition to other who disagree with me. Americans as a whole are good enough that I feel comfortable allowing the masses to have a say in how I live.
If God himself ruled, that would be best.
If righteous men were always the kings, monarchies would be 2nd best.
Since neither of these is the case at the present constitutional democracy works best.
And as I said before the checks we currently have in the system to guard against the tyranny of the majority are good enough for me. They arent impenetrable but they are hard to clear. Unfortunately with how things are, sometimes bad ideas become policy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:What would happen if there was a religion in the US that supported same sex marriages? Say Catholicism did an about face and it's okay now (yeah I know, NEVER in a million years), but all of a sudden gay Catholics can get married. Does the Constitution guarantee them the right do to so legally? Would laws that make it impossible for them to do so count as religious persecution?
Now you've touched on a topic near and dear to my heart - the free exercise clause.
*mmmm cockles warming mmmm*
The short answer is no (assuming you meant "religious persecution" as it would be defined for constitutional law purposes and that you meant legal recognition of marriage).
To expand:
The free exercise clause has been effectively neutered into meaninglessness, with one very important exception: If one can prove that the law was passed specifically to target a particular religion, such a law would be unconstitutional under the first amendment (coupled with the 14th or 5th).
In the 90s, SCOTUS decided that a law, neutral on its face, must only meet the "rational basis" test in order to survive a challenge based on the free exercise clause. This means the government must merely show that the law could be seen to be "rationally related" to a legitimate aim of government. Note that if the rationale used in the legislature is irrational, a rational rationale can be put forward in court (assuming the original rationale wasn't discriminatory in nature).
The case concerned Peyote use. It was held that a law banning peyote use did not unconstitutionally burden religious freedom of those whose religion called for its use because the law was neutral on its face and rationally related to the legitimate government end of curbing drug abuse.
In your example, if the lack of recognition of gay unions is constitutional under the equal protection and due process clause, there's no way to make it unconstitutional just because some people claim that their religion demands they be legally married.
Now, if the law banned priests from conducting such weddings even if there was no attempt to pass them off as legal marriages, that would interfere with free exercise, because it would be targeting a religious ceremony specifically. And, unlike with polygamy, it's probably unconstitutional since Lawrence to ban same sex couples from living as if they were married as long as they don't try to get a marriage license. This is a contrast to what happened to the Mormons in the Smith case in the 19th century. They weren't trying to get multiple marriage licenses, just live together as man and wife, and they went to prison.
It's not clear if that would happen today - most polygamy cases now involve underage girls and other law breaking, so there hasn't been a direct test in a while.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If God himself ruled, that would be best.
If righteous men were always the kings, monarchies would be 2nd best.
Since neither of these is the case at the present constitutional democracy works best.
As a religious person, that scares me.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The part about God ruling? I'm all for democracy, but that's because the Lord himself isn't around to do it right. I can't imagine heaven being a democracy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
More the second clause. I think that even (especially?) in Heaven, God is a pretty hands-off kind of ruler.
Also, we would have to dicuss exactly what we mean by "God". Jesus? The Holy Spirit? Are we talking some "person" type being?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
kmbboots: If you believe righteous is a purely subjective term and its impossible for something to be objectively right, I could see why that MIGHT scare you.
As for heaven and hands on/off. I think folks in heaven pretty much agree with God 100% on the right or wrong issues as opposed to, "Would grass look better green or red" no right answer issues. Thats why IMO God could be a hands off type of ruler in heaven.
The only reason IMO that a democracy is useful is that leaders are not always good and have to be kept in check by the people they govern. A righteous person is much more apt to be progressive and correct in his/her decisions then the sum total of the people's opinions. The righteous monarch would also remain in power specifically because the people want him/her to remain in that station, as the results of his/her decisions are perceived to be favorable by those people.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that you and I have very different ideas of righteousness.
I think that some dissent/disagreement/struggle is necessary for freedom. The static nature of 100% agreement is appalling. I think I would rebel just to prove that I could.
And again, what exactly do we mean by God?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, it isn't. It is necessary in our present (run by humans) system because it is by necessity an imperfect system. If the Lord was running it, it wouldn't be an imperfect system.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that you and I have very different ideas of righteousness.
I think that some dissent/disagreement/struggle is necessary for freedom. The static nature of 100% agreement is appalling. I think I would rebel just to prove that I could.
And again, what exactly do we mean by God?
dissent/disagreement/struggle only exist amongst beings of imperfect understanding. Again there is a difference between wishing to cause others to be happy and wishing to cause ill. One (to me at least) is categorically right and the other wrong.
Humans argue endlessly about what constitutes good and evil, but certainly a God with perfect understanding of ALL things would not need to quibble about it with another being of equal understanding.
Your desire to rebel just to show that you can is something humans feel as we are carnal and devilish rather then godly ;P
Again please do not confuse this idea with the idea that, Perfection only has one color. I believe in a God who created this earth (Its not important to debate how) but if this world is any indication of the variety that exists in heaven I do not think you will be strapped for options when it comes to designing your house upstairs.
IMO human beings find alot of satisfaction in debate as we are exposed to new potentially good ideas, as well as exposed to less effective ideas that are demonstratably shown as such. Do you think Gods could really argue about what is right and wrong? Having a perfect knowledge of right and wrong removes any chance that you could learn something and therefore debate is really impossible AND useless.
Harmony is really more beautiful then disharmony if you ask me.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: And as I said before the checks we currently have in the system to guard against the tyranny of the majority are good enough for me.
That's because you're not the one being tyrannized. Not for over 100 years.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote: And as I said before the checks we currently have in the system to guard against the tyranny of the majority are good enough for me.
That's because you're not the one being tyrannized. Not for over 100 years.
Well being told that I am too irrational to vote because I am religious definately moves the bar over to that direction Pix. You may disagree but I see the governments decision to continue jailing polygamists as tyranny. In my opinion polygamy is quite capable of working in a healthy manner. Banning it across the board and in the manner that the government did represents a still unremedied injustice, and a blatant slap in the face of part of the 1st ammendment.
Not that I need to feel oppressed to feel normal. I am quite content to live my life without the option of polygamy, but for me the fact remains that the government has trampled on the 1st ammendment in this instance for over 100 years.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Anyone else getting the creepy picture of God as IT in "Wrinkle in Time"?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: I do think the prohibition on polygamy is tyrrany (as we are using it in this discussion). As you well know, we've discussed it before. But You have said that you're not a polygamist.
And.. I'm sorry, but you've hit a hotbutton
quote: I am quite content to live my life without the option of polygamy
Simply becuase you are content to live your life without something that you should have the right to doesn't mean that everyone has to be content about it.
This is like saying "I would be willing to pay more taxes if..." Just becuase one person is willing to pay more taxes doesn't mean that everyone else should be willing to pay more taxes.
In any event, my statement holds that you are not the one being tyranized.
Pix
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
-pH
Ill say this right now, I am not trying to start another polygamy vs homosexuality, which is right? debate. Merely demonstrate that to say my opinions on governmental checks are irrelavant because I am not currently being oppressed is incorrect. I have polygamist ancestors, pretty sure they felt oppressed by the government. As a Mormon I believe that those who are called to be polygamists ought to be allowed to do so. But even if I was not a Mormon with ties to polygamy I would still think its wrong to assume you know why I feel the way I do. Its not like I accused Pixiest of being disingenuously oppressed as she currently is romantically involved with a man not a woman.
Ill accept your presentation of how YOU feel as accurate if you will do the same for ME.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
(humor) ph: One guy is more than enough. Can you imagine cleaning up after and cooking for more than one man? Plus what would the house smell like? Oi! And the toilet seat would never be down and you'd go to say something and you'd get voted down, and you'd never get to watch what you wanted because it would be WWE 24/7. And there would be nothing but beer in the fridge. You'd try to squeeze in some lettuce, or something else green, but the second you turned around it would thrown into the trash from across the room with the exclamation "TWO POINTS!" And the laundry would never be done, and "Oh, buy me some more razorblades the next time you go to the store, What? You just went? well go again!" And they'd always be having belching contests with eachother and it wouldn't matter how much mancandy there was in the house, you still wouldn't get any because they'd be too busy playing xbox. (/humor)
Anyway, I'm sure there's SOME woman out there who wants more than one man.. I mean with 6 billion people on earth, there's someone who wants anything.
Pix
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: (humor) ph: One guy is more than enough. Can you imagine cleaning up after and cooking for more than one man? Plus what would the house smell like? Oi! And the toilet seat would never be down and you'd go to say something and you'd get voted down, and you'd never get to watch what you wanted because it would be WWE 24/7. And there would be nothing but beer in the fridge. You'd try to squeeze in some lettuce, or something else green, but the second you turned around it would thrown into the trash from across the room with the exclamation "TWO POINTS!" And the laundry would never be done, and "Oh, buy me some more razorblades the next time you go to the store, What? You just went? well go again!" And they'd always be having belching contests with eachother and it wouldn't matter how much mancandy there was in the house, you still wouldn't get any because they'd be too busy playing xbox. (/humor)
Anyway, I'm sure there's SOME woman out there who wants more than one man.. I mean with 6 billion people on earth, there's someone who wants anything.
Pix
I actually use the toilet with the seat down regardless of what I have to do, as its just cleaner that way. I've had a few of my guy friends make fun of me for it. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
bb: I always thought of you as a good man, BB. Even though we disagree =)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Legal question Dag:
quote:In your example, if the lack of recognition of gay unions is constitutional under the equal protection and due process clause, there's no way to make it unconstitutional just because some people claim that their religion demands they be legally married.
but
quote:Note that if the rationale used in the legislature is irrational, a rational rationale can be put forward in court (assuming the original rationale wasn't discriminatory in nature).
Suppose that I create the Church of Adam and Steve, and get thousands of devout followers. We then try to overturn the law as it goes against or practice of marrying gay couples--spreading love to all God's people regardless of orientation.
You argue that as long as the harm the government does to our religion is far outweighed by the rational goals that the government has, then the law remains. However if we can disprove all rational arguments against that law, could it be overturned since its minor inconvience to our religion is now larger than the rational good it produces for society and the government?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dan, it is expressly not a balancing of the harm to the religion v. good to society. In fact, it can be proven - even admitted by the government - that a different means would accomplish the same end to a greater degree, with less cost and no negative side effects, and no impact on religion, and the act would still pass the rational basis test.
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Social Contract.
So, I would have to say that if someone honestly believes that the US will be a worse place because same sex couples could do things like sitting at a bedside in a hospital while their loved one is dying, being able to put their long-time exclusive partner on a health benefits plan, or gain custody of the child they have raised after that child's sole guardian, their partner, dies in a car accident, then . . . ok. I guess vote on that, if your heart and mind are really telling you that's a loving and fair thing to do.
I find withholding basic rights from other people because of their mutually consenting sexual acts morally repugnant.
I do NOT find it morally repugnant to believe that the choice to engage in mutually consenting sexual acts, whether homosexual, extramarital, premarital, or interesting positions etc. are wrong; I have no problem with people writing books about it, or preaching about it. But denying people things like having access to someone they love at death's door? Blegh.
I also cannot imagine worshipping an entity that really wanted that.
Samarkand made this point way back at the third page but nobody seemed to care. Can any of you even IMAGINE what it would be like not to be at your loved ones beside as they were dying? Do you even care that homosexual couples are not allowed to do this? Or is it some sort of consequence that they have to endure because of the sins they have committed? Do you even think of them as being real people with real feelings? The same sort of feelings that you have about your partner?
And Pixiest, while I'm on my rant why would you be cooking and cleaning up after and going to the store for these guys? Can they not do it themselves!
[end of angry rant]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: And Pixiest, while I'm on my rant why would you be cooking and cleaning up after and going to the store for these guys? Can they not do it themselves!
Oh if only they could.... Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
Haha, I live in a flat with two other guys (one of them is my partner) and I've gotta say I am the slobbiest of the lot. They are the ones that always do the cooking (and most of the cleaning of everything else) and I do the dishes. But I'm the kind of person that really doesn't care about mess. So if someone didn't do their share, then it wouldn't bother me if it just got messier and messier until one day they decided to clean it. I would be the last one to think "Hey thats getting pretty messy, better clean it up." Most of the time I don't even notice. I would never even think of doing all the cooking and cleaning etc and if somebody expected me to I would be like " What? Are you kidding?!". Hehe
[end of derail of thread] Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
stacey: with 6 billion people on earth, every permutation exists =)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:[end of derail of thread]
You think you can end a derail that easily. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
quote:For my part, I'm not concerned about giving homosexual couples the ability to share insurance benefits (I support nationalized health care for everyone anyway), the right to hospital visits, or the right to make medical decisions for their partner. Adoption of non-biological children DOES bother me a bit; but I believe homosexuals can be as sterling parents as anyone.
Scott, you say you don't have a problem with most of the secular civil benefits of civil marriage accruing to same sex couples. Is there a mechanism you would support for granting them? How convenient could the mechanism be before you would oppose, it if convenience matters at all, of course?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
-pH
Ill say this right now, I am not trying to start another polygamy vs homosexuality, which is right? debate. Merely demonstrate that to say my opinions on governmental checks are irrelavant because I am not currently being oppressed is incorrect. I have polygamist ancestors, pretty sure they felt oppressed by the government. As a Mormon I believe that those who are called to be polygamists ought to be allowed to do so. But even if I was not a Mormon with ties to polygamy I would still think its wrong to assume you know why I feel the way I do. Its not like I accused Pixiest of being disingenuously oppressed as she currently is romantically involved with a man not a woman.
Ill accept your presentation of how YOU feel as accurate if you will do the same for ME.
I wasn't trying to start a debate. Nor was I attacking or assuming anything. I don't know where you got that from my very short post.
-pH
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:[end of derail of thread]
You think you can end a derail that easily. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I can and I will. Any further derailing of the thread after my [end of derail of thread] is a new derail of the thread and would have nothing to do with my derail even if it was in reply to my derail. I am not responsible for any other persons derailing of the thread only my own. And with that:
[end of derail of the thread]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is there a mechanism you would support for granting them? How convenient could the mechanism be before you would oppose, it if convenience matters at all, of course?
Well... when America finally gets its act together and nationalizes health care, it won't matter. Everyone will get the assistance they need.
I don't have a specific plan in mind; I see no reason why the insurance forms that say 'spouse' can't be modified to be 'secondary principle recipient.'
(Since I don't care about insurance companies doing more paper work, the argument that 'Well, people could be wanting to change their secondary principle recipient ALL THE TIME!' isn't a really a convincing argument to me. I'm not saying that this would be a situation unique to homosexuals, either)
quote:I'm curious though, do you support Anti-Gay legislation because it is a discouragement to homosexuality, or do you do it because you think God's law should be made into public law? Do you support more Biblical Law (or God's Law) being made into national public law instead of the current secular system we have in place?
It depends on the law, really. I'm going to be nebulous here, because I've found in conversations where people use terms 'God's Law,' they mean repression.
I'd like to see higher taxes for the middle/upper classes to support education and welfare-- that, I think, is one of God's laws.
Also, I dislike the use of the term "Anti-gay legislation." In hot button topics like this, terminology is an important piece to keeping the discussion civil. Let's be specific-- I support the current definition of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. I do not support legislation that allows homosexuals to marry.
quote: Also, and this is just me being curious, you have to realize that not allowing same sex unions isn't going to dissuade anyone from being gay if they are already. All it does is force them to live their life in less happiness than they otherwise would have had. So, either you don't believe that, and you really think that not allow SSM is going to turn gay people straight (hasn't really worked well in the last couple hundred years, to say nothing of the last three decades), or you think it is okay to punish these people for their beliefs. Where does the Bible come down on persecution?
Lyrhawn, this falls under the 'it-doesn't-matter-what-happens-after' principle I discussed last page.
I don't believe keeping SSM illegal is going to keep anyone who really wants to from experimenting with homosexuality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't believe keeping SSM illegal is going to keep anyone who really wants to from experimenting with homosexuality.
Then what actual harm to society do you think is implicit in the legalization of same-sex marriage? Will it make people who don't "really want to" begin experimenting with homosexuality?
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I don't think they're looking at is as a discouragement, but rather as not *encouraging* it further.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Not that I'm trying to put down the idea of homosexual unions (I'm actually in favor of them), but civil unions would not give parterns medical proxy over each other. Marriage does not currently provide one spouse automatic medical proxy for the other spouse. That's how you get huge battles of parents v. spouse in terms of when to turn off machines. If you want someone to have your medical proxy (even if it is your spouse) there are legal papers that have to be filled out.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Also:
quote:(humor) ph: One guy is more than enough. Can you imagine cleaning up after and cooking for more than one man? Plus what would the house smell like? Oi! And the toilet seat would never be down and you'd go to say something and you'd get voted down, and you'd never get to watch what you wanted because it would be WWE 24/7. And there would be nothing but beer in the fridge. You'd try to squeeze in some lettuce, or something else green, but the second you turned around it would thrown into the trash from across the room with the exclamation "TWO POINTS!" And the laundry would never be done, and "Oh, buy me some more razorblades the next time you go to the store, What? You just went? well go again!" And they'd always be having belching contests with eachother and it wouldn't matter how much mancandy there was in the house, you still wouldn't get any because they'd be too busy playing xbox.
We'd just need to train them better!
-pH
Posted by stacey (Member # 3661) on :
Or you could just join in with the belching contests and x box playing and throwing trash contests!
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
Boys have throwing trash contests . . . ?
I think the equal treatment/ equal rights issue comes up in terms of the ease with which same sex couples can enjoy the same rights as hetero couples. So it may indeed be true that inheritance can be arranged via a trust so that everything can roll over neatly to the other partner, but currently same sex couples must pay for and set up that trust, whereas in many cases (states) hetero couples may not need to do so; it's already covered because they are recognized as a legal unit by the government. So there is a failure to treat similar pairs of people equally. Same for hosptial visitation rights - I imagine there may be some hoopla you can go through to set it up, but again it's unfair to make access easier for some than for others, essentially based on gender.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Scott -
Is this what you were referring to in the "it doesn't matter what happens afterward" thing?
quote:It. Doesn't. Matter. What. Happens.
What. Matters. Is. Obedience. To. God's. Laws.
I have to say...the confluence of your reasoning is unnerving to me.
Firstly, the problem with NOT using "Anti-Gay Legislation" is that your position, regardless of whatever niceties you want to paint over it, is about repressing gay rights. They want them, you're saying no, that's repression. I won't use the term for the sake of trying to keep this topic civil, but I think there IS more to the usage of that phrase than simple semantics. If legislation came about that stopped Jews from marrying, it's be called Anti-Semitic Legislation, and I think most people would uphold that phrasing.
Second, your reasoning, that what happens to society is basically immaterial, so long as God's Law is followed scares the bejeezes out of me. Like I said before, you have a right to your vote, however you may wish to use it, but I still think that using that kind of reasoning to legislate religion is antithetical to American principles.
Not to Scott, but to anyone at all -
Why is it that it always takes America 100 years of sliding backwards until we finally see that the first step we took was horribly wrong, and then we scramble all over ourselves and feel guilty for another century in the process? Legislating religion without concern for the common good of the nation is wrong. Denying rights to American citizens based on religious doctrine is wrong, and flies in the face of the reason millions of those immigrants came here to begin with, 300 years ago.
To Scott again -
quote:I support the current definition of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. I do not support legislation that allows homosexuals to marry.
I agree with that, and you said before that most, if not all, of the secular legal rights that most homosexual couples want, you're okay with them having. So, correct me if I'm wrong but, don't we basically agree in general?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Mostly I've been lurking in this thread (except for one post about medical proxy) because we've been having pretty much the same argument here that has been had in so many other Gay Rights threads on this forum. But there are things that I want to say, and I think now is the time.
First, I want to applaud everyone. This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality. I have been glad to see that this thread has not stooped to that level.
However, it needs to be said that most of the amendments (including the one that will be voted on in South Carolina this year) which ban civil unions for LGBT couples, don't just ban civil unions. Even if they do, banning civil unions can have state-wide repercussions on the population as a whole. Here's a summation of what the new South Carolina law would do.
It is also important to note that not all religions (or denominations therof) have found it necessary to support the ban on civil unions for homosexuals, even while maintaining that homosexuality is a "sin." One example is the United Methodist Church, which supports legislation protecting the rights of the LGBT community civilly (sp?), while still maintaining that the church itself will not condone homosexuality as a "lifestyle."
Ultimately, one of the founding principles of this nation was freedom of religion. It follows then, that if people have the right to choose which religion to follow, then they also have the right to choose not to follow any religion. As this nation has no "national" religion, it is therefore incorrect to force the religious views of some onto others by voting prejudicial, and yes, biased laws into action.
It is of course, everyone's right to vote as they wish to, you will never hear me say otherwise. However, do not be surprised if those same laws are overturned later. Frankly, much as the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's, I am of the opinion that these determinations should be made by the courts, and not voted on.
The truth is, that the current Right-wing Conservative movement to ban gay marriage, has little to do with the politician's belief system. The movement against Gay Rights in this company is like the shtick in a magic act. Politicians want people to look over here to distract from the other issues that might cause voters to cast their ballots in favor of other opponents. Unfortunately, this means that a significant portion of the population's rights are being trampled in the process.
(Edited for punctuation.)
[ October 29, 2006, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: andi330 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:your reasoning, that what happens to society is basically immaterial, so long as God's Law is followed scares the bejeezes out of me.
I understand.
quote: Like I said before, you have a right to your vote, however you may wish to use it, but I still think that using that kind of reasoning to legislate religion is antithetical to American principles.
The key phrase is 'American principles,' which I've stated I don't have a problem with breaking. As a Mormon, my first duty is to God, not my country.
quote:The movement against Gay Rights in this company is like the shtick in a magic act. Politicians want people to look over here to distract from the other issues that might cause voters to cast their ballots in favor of other opponents. Unfortunately, this means that a significant portion of the population's rights are being trampled in the process.
Except that the GOP politician has to do nothing more than say, "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" in order to gain the votes of pro-traditional-marriage folks. No GOP politician has to explain or rationalize his stance on the subject; this is because there is a grass-roots movement that has nothing to do with the politicians.
In other words, the politicians are not driving the movement to keep SSM out of society-- it's being entirely driven by citizens and citizen groups.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:First, I want to applaud everyone. This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality. I have been glad to see that this thread has not stooped to that level.
This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum you've seen where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: bb: I always thought of you as a good man, BB. Even though we disagree =)
You up for reviving the Hatracker guild once The Burning Crusade comes out Pix?
In all seriousness though, though we disagree I have always felt you were a very decent human being, bordering on plain awesome on occasion. Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:First, I want to applaud everyone. This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality. I have been glad to see that this thread has not stooped to that level.
This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum you've seen where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality.
Dag was this supposed to be sarcastic or agreement or what?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I think it was supposed to emphasize that it has happened before, but that the original poster did not read other threads that have been polite.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Perhaps I didn't. Mostly I have started staying out of these threads because when people have been making argumenst other than, "God says so," the arguements that I've seen have been on a par with that one. I really was impressed not to see it here.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If I had a dollar for every time someone has said, some variant of "I'm so impressed, this is the first civil thread on this topic I've seen" in reference to a gay marriage thread on Hatrack . . .
. . . I'd have a lot of dollars.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The key phrase is 'American principles,' which I've stated I don't have a problem with breaking. As a Mormon, my first duty is to God, not my country.
Alright. Let me ask a different question:
Your duty is to God over country, which means you have your own PERSONAL set of laws, in which you would violate national law if it meant following God's Law, right?
So where is your line between God's law being something you've chosen to follow, and your need to impose that law on others?
I think that is my concern. You can follow whatever personal law you want in private, so long as it doesn't involve anything really destructive to public safety, in which case I think you'd rightly be arrested. But when you start to push your religious agenda on others, and I wonder where in the Bible it says to do that, that's when I get nervous. But the entire process is selective, which gets into my larger problems with modern religion, but that's neither here nor there. So how do you decide when to leave God's laws private for your own following and when to press them upon others?
Separately, I wonder how religious folk justify ignoring large swaths of the Bible for whatever reason, the most likely being they are antiquated, and leaving some parts be (haven't gotten to them yet?) and trying to legislate others into law. When is it you all get together to have meetings on what chapter of the Bible needs to intrude on secular law next?
Finally, I'm curious as what your position is on a couple other issues, which I think in context are related to the topic at hand. The Bible supports the death penalty for some things that aren't even illegal today, and it supports slavery. Are you pro-slavery and pro-death penalty? Pro-stoning?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Lyr, I think most of those questions are going to get the "God told me so" sort of response.
-pH
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Lyr- Has anyone explained the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to you? I think it would answer almost all of your questions.
I'm going to leave it to someone who's actually Christian to do so, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
pH -
Last I checked God didn't ask anyone to involve themselves in legislation in a secular state. The Bible wasn't written with a secular state in sight, which makes any decisions to do so not from scripture, but from personal choice, so I'm asking where he draws the line.
blacwolve -
No, I don't know the difference. I haven't been to Bible school in a decade and remember nothing from it, other than a verse of scripture here and there. But if it will answer any of my questions I'd be glad to hear it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But what I'm saying is, where people draw the line often comes down to "God told me so."
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Last I checked God didn't ask anyone to involve themselves in legislation in a secular state. The Bible wasn't written with a secular state in sight, which makes any decisions to do so not from scripture, but from personal choice, so I'm asking where he draws the line.
This, of course, assumes that the Bible is the only way that God tells people to do things.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fine with me, I'm still asking. If someone on this board wants to tell me that God appeared to them in a vision, or a dream, or they heard a voice, and told them to write their congressman about SSM, then fine. I'm still asking.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Well, the Bible never speaks to same-sex marriage at all, anywhere, and if anyone tells you it does, ask them to point out the verse...they won't be able to. It also never speaks to lesbianism. The word homosexual does not appear in the Old Testament at all, there is no word in ancient Hebrew which translates as homosexual, so if you see the word homosexual in the Old Testament anywhere be wary of that particular translation.
Some Christians interpret certain passages in the Bible as being entirely anti-homosexual, however, depending on how you read those passages and the context of the time, they can be interpreted as being against certain types of behavior, i.e. rape, prostitution and pedophilia.
A good discussion of these interpretations can be found here. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If someone on this board wants to tell me that God appeared to them in a vision, or a dream, or they heard a voice, and told them to write their congressman about SSM, then fine. I'm still asking.
Since you asked:
I believe the men who lead the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are prophets today just as as Moses, Isiah, and the apostles were in their time.
Some things these prophets have said on the subject:
quote:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman.
quote:"We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
"As a doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture, we affirm that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children. The powers of procreation are to be exercised only between a man and a woman lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
"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."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: So how do you decide when to leave God's laws private for your own following and when to press them upon others?
When I vote, or otherwise exercise my citizenship, I consider what I'm supporting in light of my religious beliefs.
quote: Separately, I wonder how religious folk justify ignoring large swaths of the Bible for whatever reason, the most likely being they are antiquated, and leaving some parts be (haven't gotten to them yet?) and trying to legislate others into law. When is it you all get together to have meetings on what chapter of the Bible needs to intrude on secular law next?
Second Tuesday of every month. Now that Mormons have achieved 'possibly Christian-like' status from the other Christian religions, they've even given us a couple seats in the back.
They STILL only serve coffee though...
quote: Finally, I'm curious as what your position is on a couple other issues, which I think in context are related to the topic at hand. The Bible supports the death penalty for some things that aren't even illegal today, and it supports slavery. Are you pro-slavery and pro-death penalty? Pro-stoning?
I'll answer as if I think you're seriously asking:
Slavery: anti-slavery
Death penalty: depends on the crime/evidence. Mostly anti.
Stoning: There are much better ways to have fun, don't you think?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So what changed between then and now?
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote: Finally, I'm curious as what your position is on a couple other issues, which I think in context are related to the topic at hand. The Bible supports the death penalty for some things that aren't even illegal today, and it supports slavery. Are you pro-slavery and pro-death penalty? Pro-stoning?
I'll answer as if I think you're seriously asking:
Slavery: anti-slavery
Death penalty: depends on the crime/evidence. Mostly anti.
Stoning: There are much better ways to have fun, don't you think?
Actually Scott, I'm sure that Lyrhawn was serious. It is very difficult for people (Christian and non-Christian alike) to understand how people can point to a section of the Bible, (like Leviticus) and say, "Look, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," when the same book says that it's an abomination to eat shell fish, and the same people are cooking shrimp scampi for dinner.
Speaking as a Christian, I hear those arguments all the time and I find them frustrating. It's no wonder people get upset with the "God said so" argument. God said a lot of things that modern Christians tend to ignore. Why is it ok to point out certain things and say, "We don't need to follow this rule, but everyone has to follow that one." And yes, it's a serious question. I'd like a serious answer.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So what changed between then and now?
This, for one. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Actually Scott, I'm sure that Lyhrwan was serious. It is very difficult for people (Christian and non-Christian alike) to understand how people can point to a section of the Bible, (like Leviticus) and say, "Look, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," when the same book says that it's an abomination to eat shell fish, and the same people are cooking shrimp scampi for dinner.
But Scott already, in this thread, explained why he thinks it's wrong, and it had nothing to do with an interpretation of Old Testament verses.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Actually Scott, I'm sure that Lyrhawn was serious. It is very difficult for people (Christian and non-Christian alike) to understand how people can point to a section of the Bible, (like Leviticus) and say, "Look, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," when the same book says that it's an abomination to eat shell fish, and the same people are cooking shrimp scampi for dinner.
As Dagonee and Scott have already replied, people who have such a difficulty understanding this might not be as informed about Christianity as they think they are. That sound snarky and I suppose it is, just a little...but the truth is, those particular oft-raised objections (shellfish, stoning, etc.) have been repeatedly answered. Soundly answered too, within the confines of religions.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Actually, no it hasn't. Because what people ignore is that Paul, in Galations says, that if you take on any part of the law, you must take on the whole of the law. He is, at the time, speaking of circumcision, but it would apply to any portions of the law that people choose to accept.
It follows then, that if you choose to follow certain parts of the law, or the Bible you should have to follow all of it.
With that, I'm going to bow out of this thread for now. Since people are making assumptions both about my Christianity and my education (I was a religion major in college) and I would prefer not to be the cause of this thread degrading into snarky comments. I may return later, and I will probably keep reading responses, but don't ask me any direct questions, at least for now, as I won't be posting in this thread.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I was careful to use the phrase might not be for a reason, andi330. I'm sorry to have given offense, but it really does seem elemental to me.
Not all people believe that Paul in the primary authority in the Bible. Not all people-particularly on this board-believe that the Bible is something unopen to interpretation, and in fact many people have different translations.
So I choose to stand by my statement that yes, yes it has. And by my other statement, because your post where you said the following:
quote:It is very difficult for people (Christian and non-Christian alike) to understand how people can point to a section of the Bible, (like Leviticus) and say, "Look, the Bible says homosexuality is wrong," when the same book says that it's an abomination to eat shell fish, and the same people are cooking shrimp scampi for dinner.
You did not appear to be aware that there was a pretty fundamental entire set of reasons answering this apparent contradiction.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, no it hasn't. Because what people ignore is that Paul, in Galations says, that if you take on any part of the law, you must take on the whole of the law. He is, at the time, speaking of circumcision, but it would apply to any portions of the law that people choose to accept.
It follows then, that if you choose to follow certain parts of the law, or the Bible you should have to follow all of it.
The quote in the wiki article doesn't include the part later in the chapter where sexual morality is expressly included in the portion which must be followed.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
While Rakeesh was a little obnoxious in his post, what's the point in declaring statments and conclusions about the Bible at the same time you say you aren't willing to discuss them?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
1 Corinthians 6:9 (NASB)
quote: Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
1 Timothy 1:8-11
quote: 8But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully,
9realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers
10and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,
11according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.
Romans 1: 26-32
quote: 26For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
32and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
I do not understand why Christians find it so hard to understand that other Christians interpret the Bible differently than they do. And further, that differing interpretations are not a sign that the other person is ignorant, evil, or hypocritical, but that they, like you, are simply doing their best to live according to God's laws.
I'm not Christian, gay marriage is by far the most important issue to me in the upcoming elections, yet I can still do this. If you profess to follow the same God, the least you can do is treat your fellow followers with respect.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What version are you using?
-pH
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
New American Standard Bible, I said at the beginning, but probably should have written it out.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
First of all, to blacwolve: I left, as I stated, because I did not want to be a party to the degeneration of this thread, and I was annoyed enough at the time, that I had a hard time typing my last message without calling anyone names, or being excessivly rude to people. I felt that it was better at the moment to simply stop responding in this forum, than to start behaving badly.
Second, I do not have a problem with people who have different interpretations of the Bible than I do. You can believe whatever you want. I have a problem with voting laws that promote intolerance (which the upcoming South Carolina law and many others do) into action.
I have a problem with that, because of the phone call I received my sophomore year in college, telling me a friend of mine had been murdered because some homophobic...person, saw him in a gay bar, followed him home, beat the crap out of him and shot him.
States which have laws limiting the rights of homosexuals are relegating them to second class people, and it sends the message to the bigots and the hatemongers, that it is ok to commit these types of crimes. States which have laws limiting the rights of homosexuals (as the upcoming South Carolina law will do) have higher rates of hate crimes against members of the GLBT community.
I learned, the day that I got that phone call, that no matter what my religious beliefs are about homosexuality and/or homosexual "acts" that the secular law must protect the rights of the memebers of this community. Secular social justice must be preserved, and these laws do the opposite of that.
Whenever one of these laws comes up to be voted upon, I think of David. I think of the fact that they never convicted the man who did that to him. I remember the lesson that his death taught me. That my beliefs, whatever they may be, must not interfere with other's basic human rights. Voting for a law that promotes intolerance encourages violence against people of the GLBT community, that may not be the intent of most of the people voting for that law, but it does.
So, I know which way I'm voting next Tuesday. It will be my prayer this evening, that no one in this thread, or on this forum, ever has to learn that lesson the same way I did.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I actually did ask Scott those questions honestly. And no, I've never heard a real explanation on what is, and isn't to be taken seriously in the Bible. Like I said before, It's been more than a decade since I was actively involved in a church, I don't remember much, other than a verse of scripture here and there, thus I really don't claim to be super informed at all. And I don't claim to be really informed at all about nuance between the different denominations of Christianity.
So no, to this date, and having read 75% of this thread, I still don't know for sure why it's okay to target homosexuals for legislation to ensure they aren't given equal rights with the rest of the American citizenry, but leave hundreds of other Biblical crimes unmentioned.
It's discussions like this that give me sympathy for those trying to whitewash God out of our mainstream culture. For while I don't think that is necessary personally, I also think that the intrusion of the Bible into the lives of the people who don't want it there is our first step towards a watered down Western Sharia law.
What I wonder, is what will they focus on after they've guaranteed the subjection of gays to second class status? What's next? Will the next thing affect me personally? I speak out in favor of civil unions because I don't think the state has any right to intrude on the personal lives of American citizens in such a manner. But there's a larger issue at work here: What's next? I have no proof, just a feeling, but that feeling is that with a large, hell, MASSIVE fundraising and political machine at work, this nation's Christian community isn't going to just go home, dust off their shirts and say "Mission accomplished." They'll keep the ball rolling.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:and no, I've never heard a real explanation on what is, and isn't to be taken seriously in the Bible.
I've explained why I feel the way I feel about SSM. In this particular case, I believe that what God wants outweighs the arguments that people have made here regarding equal rights.
quote:my beliefs, whatever they may be, must not interfere with other's basic human rights. Voting for a law that promotes intolerance encourages violence against people of the GLBT community, that may not be the intent of most of the people voting for that law, but it does.
Your premise relies on two things: that marriage is a basic human right and that voting against SSM promotes intolerance and violence. I don't accept either.
quote:What I wonder, is what will they focus on after they've guaranteed the subjection of gays to second class status? What's next? Will the next thing affect me personally? I speak out in favor of civil unions because I don't think the state has any right to intrude on the personal lives of American citizens in such a manner. But there's a larger issue at work here: What's next? I have no proof, just a feeling, but that feeling is that with a large, hell, MASSIVE fundraising and political machine at work, this nation's Christian community isn't going to just go home, dust off their shirts and say "Mission accomplished." They'll keep the ball rolling.
The irony here, Lyrhawn, is that doomsday scenarios of every shape and form have been vomited out by those who stridently oppose SSM. "If SSM is legitimized, it's only a matter of time afore they're raping children legally on the streets."
That sort of thing.
I despise this type of fear-mongering. It doesn't do anything useful. You can't even sell it as speculative fiction.
I feel the same way about YOUR brand. Although, you actually CAN sell yours as speculative fiction...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In this particular case, I believe that what God wants outweighs the arguments that people have made here regarding equal rights.
I think this is the reason I find it so ghastly: perfectly decent people can say "I believe that what I believe God wants outweighs human rights."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Show me where Scott said that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:States which have laws limiting the rights of homosexuals are relegating them to second class people, and it sends the message to the bigots and the hatemongers, that it is ok to commit these types of crimes. States which have laws limiting the rights of homosexuals (as the upcoming South Carolina law will do) have higher rates of hate crimes against members of the GLBT community.
I (personally) agree with the first, but am aware that mine is not the only perspective out there. I couldn't disagree more with the second. I don't believe for a second that bigots and hatemongers today need an SSM law in any way to do what they do. I have no idea on the third, because you're making an unsupported statistical statement.
quote:Second, I do not have a problem with people who have different interpretations of the Bible than I do. You can believe whatever you want. I have a problem with voting laws that promote intolerance (which the upcoming South Carolina law and many others do) into action.
The second statement makes the first statement untrue, or at least meaningless. What good is belief if it cannot be acted upon? And you have a problem with acting on a certain belief, so in my opinion you don't really mean it when you say, "You can believe whatever you want." What you mean is, "You can believe whatever you want, until you screw up. Then I have a problem with it."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I quoted it. Although of course he was careful to throw in the word "arguments," to make it seem as if it was the argument and not the right itself that he was disputing. But as he's said in the post before mine, he doesn't actually consider it a right at all; it's not the argument that's underwhelming in that case.
--------
quote:I don't believe for a second that bigots and hatemongers today need an SSM law in any way to do what they do.
In the same way that I believe the legality of abortion makes abortion more common and socially acceptable, I believe laws specifically restricting the rights and privileges of homosexuals discourage their social acceptance and promote discrimination against them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Discrimination is not what was being referenced.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You don't think that violence against homosexuals -- specifically, bigotry and hatemongering -- is a product of discrimination against them?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just like not all battery becomes murder, not all discrimination becomes violence. This is in fact one of the reasons I end up defending-or at least, not attacking-opponents of SSM, because they routinely get lumped in with homophobes and hate-crimers. I'm not suggesting you're doing it, or even that it's been done in this thread. Just that I've seen it before and it's frustrating.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The second statement makes the first statement untrue, or at least meaningless. What good is belief if it cannot be acted upon? And you have a problem with acting on a certain belief, so in my opinion you don't really mean it when you say, "You can believe whatever you want." What you mean is, "You can believe whatever you want, until you screw up. Then I have a problem with it."
Why does a belief have to be forced upon others to be considered "acted upon"? Is it not enough that the believer himself does what is right in the eyes of God? Why must he take responsibility for the actions of his neighbors?
Also, this country already makes a distinction between holding a belief and intruding on the rights of others with it. It's perfectly legal to be racist, for example- one can hate on other ethnicities all one likes in the privacy of one's own home. But turn that opinion into open discriminatory action, and then we have a problem. It's not "until you screw up." It's "until expression of your beliefs infringes upon the freedoms of other people."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
Actually, polygamy can be multiple women or multiple men. Or both. Anyone who uses the term for multiple women only needs a dictionary.
Polygyny is multiple wives. Polyandry is multiple husbands. Polygamy is multiple spouses.
That is all.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Nice post, Tarrsk.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
Actually, polygamy can be multiple women or multiple men. Or both. Anyone who uses the term for multiple women only needs a dictionary.
Polygyny is multiple wives. Polyandry is multiple husbands. Polygamy is multiple spouses.
That is all.
I realize this, but in many instances people only think of polygamy in terms of multiple wives. I mean, I don't think the polygamous Mormons (or whatever the proper term may be) would be okay with multiple husbands.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tarrsk,
quote:Why does a belief have to be forced upon others to be considered "acted upon"? Is it not enough that the believer himself does what is right in the eyes of God? Why must he take responsibility for the actions of his neighbors?
Also, this country already makes a distinction between holding a belief and intruding on the rights of others with it. It's perfectly legal to be racist, for example- one can hate on other ethnicities all one likes in the privacy of one's own home. But turn that opinion into open discriminatory action, and then we have a problem. It's not "until you screw up." It's "until expression of your beliefs infringes upon the freedoms of other people."
For someone who believes marriage is an activity between a man and a woman, they can just as justifiably say it is you forcing your belief on them, Tarrsk. I do not believe this myself-I believe the government should be in the business of civil unions only, which should be permissible between men and men, women and women, men and women, and frankly multiples of each.
Just because I believe that, however, does not mean I don't respect those who don't share my belief. Some people believe they have a duty to God to try and mold their society to better suit God's laws. You do not share this belief, and in fact believe those people shouldn't do that.
I wish you and others would just admit that openly, instead of persisting in insisting that you respect people's beliefs. I don't even have a problem with people not respecting the beliefs of others. There are a whole slew of beliefs I have no respect for whatsoever.
You're totally mistaken about racism as well. One is not restricted to hatred in the privacy of one's own home.
The long and short of it is, you can insist all you want that marriage isn't just something between a man and a woman, but this will do nothing to persuade those who feel otherwise. Continuing to insist otherwise, while also claiming to respect the beliefs of others, is frankly contradictory.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is it not enough that the believer himself does what is right in the eyes of God? Why must he take responsibility for the actions of his neighbors?
When Mormons are baptised, we promise to stand as a witness of Christ and his gospel at all times. Voting our consciences is part of that; we are encouraged by our modern prophets to review the issues in light of our religion and vote for candidates and laws that best reflect our understanding of good government.
That's why.
More generally:
Doctrine and Covenants 88:81
quote: Behold, I sent you out to testify and warn the people, and it becometh every man who hath been warned to warn his neighbor.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:For someone who believes marriage is an activity between a man and a woman, they can just as justifiably say it is you forcing your belief on them, Tarrsk.
I disagree with "just as justifiably". Sure, they can say what they want, but that doesn't mean it follows any logic or reason. The clear and important difference is that "forcing" my belief on them changes their life in only the most minute and oblique way, whereas their forcing their belief on me has direct and dramatic effect. To say "just as justifiably" in this context is to betray a remarkable ignorance of the issue.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Please bear in mind that I support the idea of civil unions, and believe it should have been implented long ago, and right now in fact, with the same legal and financial rights and responsibilities as marriage.
Furthermore, it is a matter of opinion (one which I share, mind you) that forcing-yes, forcing-this belief on them changes their life in a minute, oblique way. I don't think I'm qualified to judge what beliefs and actions affect others to what degree, until I can find out on an individual level myself.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I don't think I'm qualified to judge what beliefs and actions affect others to what degree, until I can find out on an individual level myself.
I think I'm qualified to empathize with other people and to think things out to their logical conclusion. To do less than this is to abdicate all responsibility for participation in society. I emphatically disagree that the two "forcings" are equal in the direct affect they will have on the respective "victims", or even anywhere close to equal. If someone wants to put forth a valid and supported counter-claim, I'm more than willing to discuss this with them, but it is silly to just assume equanimity where none has even been claimed by the anti-SSM crowd, much less demonstrated.
The VAST majority of anti-SSM people I've talked with will readily admit that allowing two gay men to marry will not significantly change their personal lives. The most I've heard is that it might be more difficult to convince their children of the evils of homosexuality when they are faced with apparent examples to the contrary (or perhaps more from their point of view "examples incorrectly held up as desirable/normal"). Can you honestly say this compares in kind with the legal difficulties involved in foreseeing and taking steps to protect all the facets of a "marriage-like" relationship and just hoping such steps aren't challenged or thwarted perhaps in the most emotional and errevocable ways?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: Actually, no it hasn't. Because what people ignore is that Paul, in Galations says, that if you take on any part of the law, you must take on the whole of the law. He is, at the time, speaking of circumcision, but it would apply to any portions of the law that people choose to accept.
It follows then, that if you choose to follow certain parts of the law, or the Bible you should have to follow all of it.
You might not read this response but oh well. I think you misunderstand Paul's purpose. He is stating that if you are so obsessed about circumcision then you must follow that logic to incorporate the ENTIRE Law of Moses. You can't say Jesus is the author of our salvation, AND The Law of Moses must also be strictly observed. The mechanic of salvation must exist within Jesus' atonement or else The Law itself.
Paul was arguing that many Jews within the church were trying to renew circumcision as a requirement for Christian membership, and that, in Paul's opinion was a mistake. Paul was certainly not arguing that belief in Part of Jesus' words denotes obedience to all, thats kinda obvious. You can't seriously argue that Jesus was right SOME of the time, without negating the divinity of his nature.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Scott -
quote:The irony here, Lyrhawn, is that doomsday scenarios of every shape and form have been vomited out by those who stridently oppose SSM. "If SSM is legitimized, it's only a matter of time afore they're raping children legally on the streets."
That sort of thing.
I despise this type of fear-mongering. It doesn't do anything useful. You can't even sell it as speculative fiction.
I feel the same way about YOUR brand. Although, you actually CAN sell yours as speculative fiction...
I said right in my statement that I had no proof of it, it's just a feeling. If I'm wrong, and I hope I am, I'll be the first to admit it. That isn't by any means by chief argument. It's just something in the back of my mind.
But it's funny you should bring up your side of the fear argument. I had a discussion with someone at work today who said he disagrees with SSM because next, people will want to marry their horses. He said the 10 commandments should be displayed anywhere, be it the steps of the Capitol or the lobby of a Supreme Court building. He said the bells that call Muslims to pray in Hamtramck shouldn't be allowed every morning.
Is there a large group of people out their clamoring for civil unions with horses? This country has a separation of church and state for multiple reasons, one of those being the founding fathers didn't want the state meddling in the church as they had in Europe, and another being, as they specfically did not make Christianity the religion of the land, that this was to be a land of religious freedom, with no state sponsorship of any one religion over another. Otherwise we might as well be Turkey, with a "public" secular state but a real favoritism towards a single religion.
Raping children in the street? You seriously equate that with civil unions Scott? You're saying that sexually assaulting children in the street is the next step after civil unions, the legal status of which you admitted to not being against. I find that reprehensible, and biggoted.
The guy at work accused me of being for "people having the freedom to do pretty much anything they want." It's people accusing me of things like that, that make me wonder if I would have been a Republican in some ways 20 years ago, when Republicans were about keeping the government out of their personal lives. I think limiting the rights of Americans has to have a damned good reason. "Because God told me to," isn't good enough. Trumping human rights and constitutional guarantees is something we've fought for more than 200 years to make sure NO ONE would have the right to do. Civil rights advocates have fought for a century in this country in the face of religious conservatives trying to keep a status quo they found favorable and sanctioned by God, so you'll forgive me if I don't exactly trust their track record on the issue of who should and shouldn't be allowed to have equality.
It's ironic that so many people point to the founding fathers and the constitution and say "they were Christians, they never imagined we'd have a whitewashed state with NO religion at all." And yet the founding fathers are the ones who codified "All men are created equal," "endowed by their creator with inalienable rights," as a part of our national heritage as well as the basis for our society and legal system.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Raping children in the street? You seriously equate that with civil unions Scott? You're saying that sexually assaulting children in the street is the next step after civil unions, the legal status of which you admitted to not being against. I find that reprehensible, and biggoted.
He quoted that statement as an example of "this type of fear-mongering." You know, the type he despised.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I made no statements that the forcing was equal, just that there was equally forcing on both sides. Does that make sense? I mean that both sides are, according to some on both sides, forcing a belief on others.
Not that the necessary imposition of that force ends up being equal, just that there's forcing on both sides.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't see allowing SSM as forcing a belief. It's not forcing anyone to do anything. At all. Actually, okay. It forces courts/insurance companies/the government to treat the partners as if they're legally married.
It does not force anyone else to do anything. Just like drinking being legal does not force anyone to drink.
-pH
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"Just as justifiable" does not make sense with the explanation immediately above. As far as I understand the meaning of the language, it refers to equality of reason, not of force, and that is the only phrase of your post I had a problem with.
I'm not trying to paint you as a bad guy in this, but I do suggest you look more carefully at what you write, especially if you think what you wrote immediately above conveys even remotely the sense I think most people would take from what you wrote that I originally quoted. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This is all I have to add about the argument, "SSM now, legal bestiality later." Slippery slopes are often logical fallacies, but even a casual study of history, especially when it comes to law, shows that a decision with a goal in mind, OFTEN has unforeseen consequences.
The 13th and 14th amendments led to segregation, the 18th amendment led to a huge increase in crime. Read all about this in Freakonomics. SPOILERS! The author speculates that Roe V Wade led to a big decrease in crime about 20 years later, or at least it staved off a huge increase in crime that was projected to occur.
All I am trying to say is that if you state, "SSM will not cause ANYTHING undesirable to happen," you are being just as obtusely prophetic as those who say, "SSM will lead to fire and brimestone!"
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You're correct that what I wrote failed to convey the meaning I intended. However, I maintain that there is force on both sides, for some people, of this issue. That is seperate from the question of how much force is being used. It could apply if I throw a rock at you, and you shoot a gun at me, as if we both throw rocks at each other.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't see allowing SSM as forcing a belief. It's not forcing anyone to do anything. At all. Actually, okay. It forces courts/insurance companies/the government to treat the partners as if they're legally married.
It does not force anyone else to do anything. Just like drinking being legal does not force anyone to drink.
This is your perspective. However, some people believe that they are being forced to live in a society which recognizes SSM as legitimate, should such a thing become (as I think it should) legitimate. It's easy to say, "No one's forcing them to," which is a logical rejoinder, but it can equally be said of SSM proponents.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What I'm saying is that no one is going to make you, personally, recognize SSM as a legitimate marriage in the eyes of God.
Just like no one is going to make you, personally, drink alcohol, buy a firearm, watch a pornographic film, make use of modern medicine, or wear jeans and a t-shirt, all of which are things to which some religion(s) object(s).
Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married.
Only to members of the same sex.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn No one is forcing them to live here.
Now which side are you arguing for? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Raping children in the street? You seriously equate that with civil unions Scott?
Lyrhawn, take a minute to read what Scott wrote. Specifically:
"I despise this type of fear-mongering. It doesn't do anything useful. You can't even sell it as speculative fiction."
He was condemning people who make that type of argument.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only to members of the same sex.
And if only gay people were allowed to wed would you feel the same way? cuz, hey, you're not denied equal rights. You can still marry a man. Just not the person you love.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn No one is forcing them to live here.
Now which side are you arguing for?
Dear God you jumped on that fast. I deleted that almost the second after I posted it.
The point I was trying to emphasize was that "forcing" someone to live in a society tolerant of the gay lifestyle is a silly argument. They are still living together, still having sex, still kissing on street corners in full view of children. They choose to live in this society, and all that comes with it, all that comes with the freedom of personal choice and the lack of repressions we're supposed to be fighting against.
Toleration is a bit of a leap from acceptance. I tolerate a sinus infection, but I ACCEPT SSM. I don't get how extended secular rights to homosexual couples is any more "accepting" of the "gay lifestyle" than the current status they "enjoy." It does nothing to change the status quo for anyone other than the people who want those rights.
Edit to add: We're technically "forcing" them to live in a secular society, which apparently isn't thrilling to a lot of them, in the same sense that I'm "forced" to live in a society that gives Pat Robertson a rather loud bullhorn to speak with. If we're going to create separate but equal for gays, let's destroy the first amendment to shut up crazed religious bigots too. I want my piece of the civil rights restraint pie.
[ October 30, 2006, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Raping children in the street? You seriously equate that with civil unions Scott?
Lyrhawn, take a minute to read what Scott wrote. Specifically:
"I despise this type of fear-mongering. It doesn't do anything useful. You can't even sell it as speculative fiction."
He was condemning people who make that type of argument.
Why bother to make the purposefully inflammatory statement then?
I apologize for jumping on you so quickly Scott, and unfairly. I should've taken more than ten seconds to compose a response rather than go in the heat of the moment, but it's been a long day already, and a slow day at work this morning turned into a live action version of this discussion with far less reasonable people, so I was already cooking a bit. It doesn't excuse my behavior, but I hope it explains it.
I think your point would've been better served had you left out the intentionally inflammatory statement. It's not like it served as a counterpoint to anything I said. I was speaking in hypothetical abstractions, not making accusations, or speaking as if representing accusations.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No problem.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hehe, I didn't think I jumped on it so fast. I just clicked on the last page of the thread, saw it there and hit quote. Must have been funny timing, thats all. I just thought it was a weird statement to make. If the same thing was said about those same sex couples that want to be married, I imagine it wouldn't have been given a pass.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only to members of the same sex.
And if only gay people were allowed to wed would you feel the same way? cuz, hey, you're not denied equal rights. You can still marry a man. Just not the person you love.
You beat me to it Pix, I was going to say the same thing. I once read OSC give the same argument, and it irked me then too.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This is all I have to add about the argument, "SSM now, legal bestiality later." Slippery slopes are often logical fallacies, but even a casual study of history, especially when it comes to law, shows that a decision with a goal in mind, OFTEN has unforeseen consequences.
The 13th and 14th amendments led to segregation, the 18th amendment led to a huge increase in crime. Read all about this in Freakonomics. SPOILERS! The author speculates that Roe V Wade led to a big decrease in crime about 20 years later, or at least it staved off a huge increase in crime that was projected to occur.
All I am trying to say is that if you state, "SSM will not cause ANYTHING undesirable to happen," you are being just as obtusely prophetic as those who say, "SSM will lead to fire and brimestone!"
Yes, but being a country of self-professed freedom lovers, if we cannot predict anything concretely detrimental happening to society, in this life, I would think the most principled stance (from a citizen's point of view) would be to recommend an attempt at more freedom, sort of a benefit-of-the-doubt thing, and then amend as necessary later, if there are unforeseen repurcussions.
This is, of course, negated if your rationale is more akin to Scott's. At that point you are no longer trying to "play within the system." Which is something I disagree with but, so far as the opinion is professed openly, is fine to me.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Hehe, I didn't think I jumped on it so fast. I just clicked on the last page of the thread, saw it there and hit quote. Must have been funny timing, thats all. I just thought it was a weird statement to make. If the same thing was said about those same sex couples that want to be married, I imagine it wouldn't have been given a pass.
I don't think the statement REALLY works both ways. Can you appreciate the irony of homosexuals fleeing the country to escape persecution and seeking freedom elsewhere? Talk about abandoning the principles this nation was founded on. How could we ever stand up and claim to be the land of the free? I guess Canada is the land of the free now.
But I saw the dual uses of the statement and deleted it almost immediately because of the almost built in confusion within.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, but being a country of self-professed freedom lovers, if we cannot predict anything concretely detrimental happening to society, in this life, I would think the most principled stance (from a citizen's point of view) would be to recommend an attempt at more freedom, sort of a benefit-of-the-doubt thing, and then amend as necessary later, if there are unforeseen repurcussions.
I don't think that follows. Many people think the burden should be on those desiring a change to demonstrate that its harms won't outweigh the benefits.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
But isn't that just a variation of "proving a negative"?
-Bok
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married.
Only to members of the same sex.
I find this response immensely insensitive and flippant. I can explain why if it isn't obvious.
That said, I still like you, Porter. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: But isn't that just a variation of "proving a negative"?
-Bok
How so?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This is all I have to add about the argument, "SSM now, legal bestiality later." Slippery slopes are often logical fallacies, but even a casual study of history, especially when it comes to law, shows that a decision with a goal in mind, OFTEN has unforeseen consequences.
The 13th and 14th amendments led to segregation, the 18th amendment led to a huge increase in crime. Read all about this in Freakonomics. SPOILERS! The author speculates that Roe V Wade led to a big decrease in crime about 20 years later, or at least it staved off a huge increase in crime that was projected to occur.
All I am trying to say is that if you state, "SSM will not cause ANYTHING undesirable to happen," you are being just as obtusely prophetic as those who say, "SSM will lead to fire and brimestone!"
Yes, but being a country of self-professed freedom lovers, if we cannot predict anything concretely detrimental happening to society, in this life, I would think the most principled stance (from a citizen's point of view) would be to recommend an attempt at more freedom, sort of a benefit-of-the-doubt thing, and then amend as necessary later, if there are unforeseen repurcussions.
This is, of course, negated if your rationale is more akin to Scott's. At that point you are no longer trying to "play within the system." Which is something I disagree with but, so far as the opinion is professed openly, is fine to me.
-Bok
One of the reasons I think Roe V Wade happened was that people could effectively demonstrate what was already happening at the time in regards to abortions. People were already doing them and their effects COULD be studied and shown.
I think the weight of evidence is on the SSM supporters to demonstrate that there is a real problem that SSM solves ethically.
I'd be interested in reading a well put together study on the effects of SSM in the short and long term. I personally do not know which country has allowed it the longest. Nor do I have any hard data on how allowing SSM has directly affected anything.
I was merely stating that I don't believe in erring on the side of freedom, as we do not HAVE to err at all if we are careful about things. If we can't make a good decision, I say wait on it even in the face of injustice until we CAN make a good decision.
Thorny Analogy:
The unfavorable outcome of being late does not warrant hasty driving as the consequences of such driving while not always unfavorable often can be.
There is no time limit on solving the SSM question. Even if we ought to make an intelligent decision as fast as reasonably possible.
That line of reasoning led me to vote against the legislation that passed in Utah banning SSM. I feel like it was a VERY hasty decision by the people of Utah.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Marriage has nothing to do with religion. It is a legal contract uniting two parties into one. I don't see what's the big deal. If religious folk don't want to have gay people married in their churches that's fine, just don't interfer with my buisness arrangements.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Yes, but being a country of self-professed freedom lovers, if we cannot predict anything concretely detrimental happening to society, in this life, I would think the most principled stance (from a citizen's point of view) would be to recommend an attempt at more freedom, sort of a benefit-of-the-doubt thing, and then amend as necessary later, if there are unforeseen repurcussions.
I don't think that follows. Many people think the burden should be on those desiring a change to demonstrate that its harms won't outweigh the benefits.
OK, and in your estimation, Dag, is that even possible in this case? I mean how can this be demonstrated except in doing it? I've personally addressed every single secular arguement against SSM that has been expressed on this forum (unless someone snuck one by me while I wasn't looking) and the other side has been very hard-pressed to come up with compelling non-religious arguements even though I've actively sought them out on this forum. I'll grant one's religious convictions are certainly compelling for them, but I don't think that's anywhere near a trump card in a secular, multi-cultural, poly-religious society. As far as the thought exeriment goes, I feel my side has won hands down. The other side can't offer more than a vague "who knows what will happen". So how do we demonstrate further unless we are willing to take the change in practice?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Hmmm, I guess in part because I don't see to many concrete negatives, especially of the type that infringe on another person's liberty. I'd need examples of concrete harm people fear, even better if it can be shown to infringe on someone's liberty. Most that I have seen HAVE been argued, at least to a stalemate, if not a definitive answer either way.
I guess it's to the point now that people throw out the term "harm" without any examples. How do you argue against a concept that has no context? --
It isn't the same, I suppose; it just feels like it to me.
-Bok
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I have to wonder, how long do states like MA and NJ have to not show any of the signs that OSC and others say they will (e.g. turning into places like Arkansas and Alabama in regards to their divorce rate) before we're allowed to disregard their dire warnings?
[ October 30, 2006, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Marriage has nothing to do with religion.
Opinion. An opinion I share, but opinion nonetheless. Actually, the opinion I hold would be more accurately stated: neither state nor federal governments should be in the business of recognizing marriages, instead recognizing only civil unions which should be granted to any legal adult parties.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I don't think Dag is talking about proving a negative, but perhaps something along the lines of whether it is valid to apply the precautionary principle to pro-SSM legislation. Additionally, if it is applied to SSM legislation, which viewpoint does it more closely support. Of course, I could be completely off-base, since I am not Dag Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:in your estimation, Dag, is that even possible in this case?
I don't know.
quote:So how do we demonstrate further unless we are willing to take the change in practice?
I think the successful way is to continue to wrench the legal aspects of marriage away from the cultural aspects. Legally, it's these rights, duties, and privileges. That's it. Nothing more.
Then encourage (socially, not legally) other institutions to take up the slack of defining the non legal aspects of marriage. Heck, maybe even allow different organizations to register different default rules related to each of the duties, rights, and privileges as they relate to the spouses. If marriage is a contractual relationship, then there's no reason to disallow private forms of the contract.
One of my big problems today is that "government" and "society" have been merged too much.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I have to wonder, how long do states like MA and NJ have to not show any of the signs that OSC and others say they will (e.g. turning into places like Arkansas and Alabama in regards to their divorce rate) before we're allowed to disregard their dire warnings?
Divorce rates are not the only way we should be gauging the success of America's marital practices.
By that logic we should simply blindly turn to arranged marriages coupled with a crushing disdain for divorce as a means to keep our marriages stable.
Divorce might or might not go up in the long term if SSM are allowed. If SSM were shown to be 100% without divorce the gross divorce rate in every state could still go down based on completely unrelated factors.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think the weight of evidence is on the SSM supporters to demonstrate that there is a real problem that SSM solves ethically.
There are over 1000 privileges/responsibilities that are enjoyed by married couples, provided by federal and local governments. These range from visitation rights of children and sick loved ones to financial/tax implications (inheritance being a major subset of this). While many of these privileges can be written up in special legal documents, these documents don't necesarily have the same legal standing as existing precedent, and ultimately can (and has) lead to enforcement being a matter of judicial whim (yes, that could be considered irony).
To me, that is the ethical question involved.
The institution that gays are looking for is exactly like legal, secularly-licensed marriage, and the only difference is one that doesn't create any added complications with the existing institution (as one might argue is the case with polygamy), IMO. In fact, the good governor of MA complicated it out of spite when he mandated town clerks to use forms that said "Party A" and "Party B", instead of leaving husband and wife, or even "Spouse A" and "Spouse B". I know, because I got married a year ago (a year after the MA SJC ruling), and filled them out.
If it's absolutely necessary, I think civil unions can be an acceptable first step.
-Bok
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thank you Dag. That's actually a really good answer to my question and gives me a bit to think about.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:I have to wonder, how long do states like MA and NJ have to not show any of the signs that OSC and others say they will (e.g. turning into places like Arkansas and Alabama in regards to their divorce rate) before we're allowed to disregard their dire warnings?
Divorce rates are not the only way we should be gauging the success of America's marital practices.
By that logic we should simply blindly turn to arranged marriages coupled with a crushing disdain for divorce as a means to keep our marriages stable.
Divorce might or might not go up in the long term if SSM are allowed. If SSM were shown to be 100% without divorce the gross divorce rate in every state could still go down based on completely unrelated factors.
So is there any evidence you would consider sufficient to prove that SSM don't harm society? How do you define harming society?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I find this response immensely insensitive and flippant. I can explain why if it isn't obvious.
That response is at the heart of why I don't think it's a civil rights issue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade,
Straight people didn't have to wait to prove anything before they could get married. Neither did we make mixed race couples prove that their unions wouldn't harm society. We made that change because it was right.
Porter,
Do you believe that it is less "sinful" for a gay person to marry someone with whom they are not in love than to marry someone of the same gender? That they convince (or trick) someone into marrying them without that bond?
If so than you and I have different ideas about what is meant by a loving God.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And if only gay people were allowed to wed would you feel the same way? cuz, hey, you're not denied equal rights. You can still marry a man. Just not the person you love.
A society in which homosexual unions were the basic unit of society would be so different in so many ways that I can't really begin to imagine how I would feel about it, because I wouldn't be me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:And if only gay people were allowed to wed would you feel the same way? cuz, hey, you're not denied equal rights. You can still marry a man. Just not the person you love.
A society in which homosexual unions were the basic unit of society would be so different in so many ways that I can't really begin to imagine how I would feel about it, because I wouldn't be me.
Well, try. Because that is how we are expecting gay people to live.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What's interesting about that, Porter, is that I agree with you -- and agree with you that denying homosexuals the opportunity to marry prevents them from ever really being themselves.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
m_p_h, that's conjecture. It may not be as different. I don't see why it need be that different.
-Bok
EDIT: I will add that I would expect us to feel it is much different, especially if it flipped from something like our current society. I just don't think one should accept that assumption out of hand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Didn't mean to pile on there, Porter.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I find this response immensely insensitive and flippant. I can explain why if it isn't obvious.
That response is at the heart of why I don't think it's a civil rights issue.
I don't understand the point you are making, here. Perhaps you might elucidate?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I find this response immensely insensitive and flippant. I can explain why if it isn't obvious.
That response is at the heart of why I don't think it's a civil rights issue.
Please explain. To me then it sounds like you are saying not only are pro-SSM marriage arguements completely invalid, but that there's not even an issue. That response seems to illegitimize my very existence. "Oh, there's no problem since you could marry a woman. The fact that you're gay is the problem."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
KMB: I believe that a person who has same-sex attraction could get married without it being a bad idea, but not without them being upfront and honest about it with their spouse.
You already know that I believe that homosexual relationships are inherently sinful.
quote:If so than you and I have different ideas about what is meant by a loving God.
You and I have different ideas about most things pertaining to religion. But you already knew that too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Thank you Dag. That's actually a really good answer to my question and gives me a bit to think about.
I'm glad you got that, because it seemed hopelessly muddled to me. It's hinting at something much bigger that I've been trying to formulate for over a decade now. It relates to my distaste for government funding of personal expression, my desire for school choice, my view on same-sex marriage, the type of public support the boy scouts should receive and on what basis, my mistrust of tax codes as a way to encourage and discourage behavior, pharmacist choice, and a host of other issues.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, BB and I just had a conversation (here's another, not with BB) about the ex-gay movement and how, in it's 30 or so years of their concerted efforts to turn religious gay people who really wanted to change into heterosexuals, they've yet to be able to give evidence for success in any matter except for a questionable and vanishingly small sample. In this thread, I demonstrated that I was aware and well versed in these "therapies", which would go along with my constant demonstration that, especially when I'm talking about psychological subjects, I am well versed in the things I represent myself as well-versed in. And yet, he responded with:
quote:Thats your opinion, I think its sweepingly hasty in judgement. I seriously doubt you have extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal. For me to agree with you I would have to actively disagree with what I honestly believe is true. That human beings can become whatever they choose to be. You can believe that its impossible for any homosexual to cultivate feelings of attraction towards members of the opposite gender, and I would simply disagree with you.
I have to wonder, how much is it going to take?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: KMB: I believe that a person who has same-sex attraction could get married without it being a bad idea, but not without them being upfront and honest about it with their spouse.
What about someone with no opposite-sex attraction. And why would someone enter into such a partnership?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Bokonon: And that's why I am pretty close to being sure that civil unions are a good idea. Though I get stuck up on the question of letting homosexual couples adopt children. But thats a discussion for another time.
blacwolve: Do you want me to postulate on ways SSM COULD harm society or just factors that in general are bad for society? I have admitted earlier to wishing I had hard data for the former (both for or against) and I am pretty sure you don't need my help for the latter. But just in case.
Higher crime rates, drops in literacy, economical decline, infant mortality increases, life expectancy drops, standard of living decline, scientific spending decline. There are more but those are the easiest to acknowledge as being unfavorable.
kmbboots: Thats a flimsy argument because we are acting on precedent in regards to marriage, its up to those who want to change the status quo that have to demonstrate why its a good thing, its not the status quo's responsibility to defend itself every evening. If we didn't have institutionalized marriage (There are plenty of countries that DONT have it) within the US it WOULD be up to heterosexual relationships to demonstrate why its ethical for them to get assistance from the government. Usually the fact heterosexuals raise the next generation of Americans is cited as grounds for giving them assistance.
Amalgamates definitely did show there was an injustice to preventing their marriages from being accepted. They could demonstrate through hard statistics and many years of history that amalgamate relationships do work and do not adversely effect society in any way that can be determined.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, BB and I just had a conversation (here's another, not with BB) about the ex-gay movement and how, in it's 30 or so years of their concerted efforts to turn religious gay people who really wanted to change into heterosexuals, they've yet to be able to give evidence for success in any matter except for a questionable and vanishingly small sample. In this thread, I demonstrated that I was aware and well versed in these "therapies", which would go along with my constant demonstration that, especially when I'm talking about psychological subjects, I am well versed in the things I represent myself as well-versed in. And yet, he responded with:
quote:Thats your opinion, I think its sweepingly hasty in judgement. I seriously doubt you have extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal. For me to agree with you I would have to actively disagree with what I honestly believe is true. That human beings can become whatever they choose to be. You can believe that its impossible for any homosexual to cultivate feelings of attraction towards members of the opposite gender, and I would simply disagree with you.
I have to wonder, how much is it going to take?
Thats quite misleading MR.Squicky. You made the statement that you knew such efforts had a low success rate. I challenged your credentials and expressed doubt and in another thread that I didnt see you posted some data on the matter. Maybe I misunderstood you but don't pretend I saw your credentials and still maintained my doubt.
edit: I reread your post and now I am not sure what point your are trying to make. Could you elucidate please?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Slavery was status quo, segregation was status quo, women as property was status quo. There were "downsides" to abolishing all of those. Still it needed to be done because it was right.
I am not clear. Are you suggesting that higher crim rates, drops in literacy etc. would be the result of SSM? If so, why do you think these things would follow.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Higher crime rates, drops in literacy, economical decline, infant mortality increases, life expectancy drops, standard of living decline, scientific spending decline. There are more but those are the easiest to acknowledge as being unfavorable.
Unfavorable yes, but how in the world do you tie those to the acceptance of SSM?
It's equally possible that SSM would lead to a drop in promiscuity (with a corresponding drop in the spread of sexually transmitted disease), a drop in teen suicide, and a stronger economy as more couples feel comfortable planning for the future together.
It's more likely that we'll see all of that plus an increase in hate crimes and many more protests.
But I fail to see how a renewed emphasis on lifetime commitment can be a bad thing. Maybe heterosexuals will start trying harder on their own marriages so the homosexuals won't show them up...
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Maybe I'm reading him wrong, but it doesn't look like he's saying SSM will cause those things. He's answering two seperate questions seperately.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Slavery was status quo, segregation was status quo, women as property was status quo. There were "downsides" to abolishing all of those. Still it needed to be done because it was right.
Right, thats why freeing the slaves had to be demonstratably good, ditto for desegregation, and women as property. Alot of historians are acknowledging today that the flat across the board abolishment of slavery was a bad idea and that an easing into a slaveless society would have probably worked better. This may or may not matter but slavery was abolished almost as much for political convenience as it was for being moral. For women to not be seen as property women had to demonstrate that the view of women as inferiors was unfounded and bereft of real data. Its obviously much easier to show that these positive changes are so obviously good now, but when we institute radical new change to the status quo its unwise to believe that we fully understand the ramifications of doing so when it is done.
You mentioned downsides to abolishing slavery, instituting women's equality, and desegregating society. I'm not sure I agree with you that there were good arguments that they would harm society.
quote: I am not clear. Are you suggesting that higher crime rates, drops in literacy etc. would be the result of SSM? If so, why do you think these things would follow.
oh no no no, I was asked a question that seemed vague and said I could not postulate on the good or ill accomplished by SSM. I was asked to list factors that could be used to judge harm to society. So I did. Those factors are not all necessarily related in any way to SSM.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, could you provide a little more behind why your harms will fall out from SSM?
I have a sudden desire to say that SSM will, as part of its benefits to society, cure cancer, bring about world peace, ecological balance, and snappier dressing.
-Bok
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Ah, you're right, I read it wrong the first time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: BB, could you provide a little more behind why your harms will fall out from SSM?
I have a sudden desire to say that SSM will, as part of its benefits to society, cure cancer, bring about world peace, ecological balance, and snappier dressing.
-Bok
Seems a lot of people misunderstood what I was trying to say. My initial reaction is to blame myself for being too vague rather then accuse any of you for idiocy. You can all decide which is more true for yourselves.
Again I admit that I cannot accurately guess as to how SSM might harm society. But there ARE plenty of ways to gauge harm to society, thats all my post was attempting to list.
And can I just say I LOVE LOVE LOVE Firefox 2.0's auto spell checker. You all have no idea how much I need it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Divorce rates are not the only way we should be gauging the success of America's marital practices.
By that logic we should simply blindly turn to arranged marriages coupled with a crushing disdain for divorce as a means to keep our marriages stable.
Err...I never suggested that they should be the only. However, I think we can all agree that they do provide a way of judging the health of marriage.
There are places in our country and outside it that are allowing same sex marriages. As yet, none of the dire consequences that people have predicted have occured in these places. In fact, in many, many scales (included many the indicate the health of the marriages and families), the states in the U.S. that allow SSM are much better off than the states that are realy, really against them.
We're not in Gay marriage boogeyman territory now. There are places that are allowing them. And, as I said, the dire predictions haven't come true. How long does it take of these places functioning at around the same level before we can say "Well, it doesn't seem to have any awful effects."?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Most of the pedictions I've heard would take at least a generation to tell if they had come true or not. :shrug:
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And those predictions would be?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No specific predictions come to mind, but most of the objections I've heard that had a predictive element involved the affects it would have on children growing up in a society which, by its laws and social norms, says that a homosexual union is pretty much identical to a traditional marriage.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That seems to be a pretty testable thing. We've got children who were adopted and raised by gay couples. We should be able to gauge, to a certain extent, what the effects would be by looking at these kids.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I find this response immensely insensitive and flippant. I can explain why if it isn't obvious.
That response is at the heart of why I don't think it's a civil rights issue.
Please explain. To me then it sounds like you are saying not only are pro-SSM marriage arguements completely invalid, but that there's not even an issue. That response seems to illegitimize my very existence. "Oh, there's no problem since you could marry a woman. The fact that you're gay is the problem."
You sound surprised. Isn't that exactly what he's been saying?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That seems to be a pretty testable thing. We've got children who were adopted and raised by gay couples. We should be able to gauge, to a certain extent, what the effects would be by looking at these kids.
When you think that people growing up and not thinking that homosexuality is always awful wrong bad bad wrong is a terribly negative effect, no matter what you're going to think there's terrible harm. If you're worried about those kids being more likely to turn out to be gay, that's another issue altogether.
-pH
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
BB- I phrased it wrong, what I meant to ask was what evidence would convince you that gay marriage was good (or at least neutral) for society. Then I asked the next question so we could have some idea what we meant when we said something was good or bad for society.
For example, if one of the factors used to judge that society is bad is that it has gay marriage, then we're sort of running around in circles.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
BB, the "or" in your original message confused me. Then I had some post lag since I was finishing up at work; didn't mean to pile on.
-Bok
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: No specific predictions come to mind, but most of the objections I've heard that had a predictive element involved the affects it would have on children growing up in a society which, by its laws and social norms, says that a homosexual union is pretty much identical to a traditional marriage.
What effects are you guessing or thinking it might have on kids who grow up in such a society? Keeping in mind of course all the parents who'd be around to teach responsible hatred to their children.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What effects are you guessing or thinking it might have on kids who grow up in such a society? Keeping in mind of course all the parents who'd be around to teach responsible hatred to their children.
How can I resist spending the time and effort to answer your question when it was asked so respectfully?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
By the simple expedient of resorting to a wounded dignity and twisting the issue into one of what language is appropriate, apparently.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, that would work out deliciously for you, KoM-if people were willing to ignore your language and answer your 'questions' while ignoring tone.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:What effects are you guessing or thinking it might have on kids who grow up in such a society? Keeping in mind of course all the parents who'd be around to teach responsible hatred to their children.
How can I resist spending the time and effort to answer your question when it was asked so respectfully?
I could spend the next two days searching out all the references on this board I've heard to "hate the sin, not the sinner." I think "responsible hatred" is a fair term.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Or you could spend the next twenty minutes looking for a Christian on this board opposed to legalizing SSM who hates homosexuals.
Let me know how that works out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I never said there was one.
Putting words in my mouth Rakeesh?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think "responsible hatred" is a fair term.
Surely you don't think that the people you're referring to would consider it a fair term.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Possibly then it would be wise not to bandy about words like hatred so lightly, no? Or perhaps you don't subscribe to hating the sin?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
BB,
quote: I reread your post and now I am not sure what point your are trying to make. Could you elucidate please?
My point was, we just talked about this. In this conversation, you didn't know the basic facts. I, on the other hand, knew much more than the basic facts and represented myself as knowing even more, specifically about the efficacy of the ex-gay people's "therapy". I referenced the ex-gay movement in this thread, as I do in many threads of the subject. I did it to directly challenge your assumptions.
You responded with challenging my character, saying that you seriously doubted my claims, bascially calling me a liar. And why? Not because I didn't display a more than surface knoweldge in the other thread. Not because you knew any information that was contrary to my claims. Not because my statements were at all inconsistent. No, you called me a liar because the facts I was presenting disagreed with your beliefs.
I'm not sure, but are you now willing to say, having seen a more extensive section of my knowledge on this subject, that I'm not lying about knowing a substantial amount about the programs I'm talking about? And, if so, will you grant that, when I say that they've been trying to convert highly motivated gay Christians for the past 30 years without any established success except possibly in a very, very small number of cases, I'm speaking from knowledge of the subject? Or, at the very least, actually try to learn something about the subject before you make an attack on my character again?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, I'm wondering, do you see a problem with extrapolating from the children raised by gay couples to the wider effect on society? If so, could you tell me what they are?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Considering how I was treated last time I tried to do something similar, I'll politely decline.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::edited to remove unecessary aggression, though I felt the sentiment was fair, I don't think it's productive::
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: BB,
quote: I reread your post and now I am not sure what point your are trying to make. Could you elucidate please?
My point was, we just talked about this. In this conversation, you didn't know the basic facts. I, on the other hand, knew much more than the basic facts and represented myself as knowing even more, specifically about the efficacy of the ex-gay people's "therapy". I referenced the ex-gay movement in this thread, as I do in many threads of the subject. I did it to directly challenge your assumptions.
You responded with challenging my character, saying that you seriously doubted my claims, bascially calling me a liar. And why? Not because I didn't display a more than surface knoweldge in the other thread. Not because you knew any information that was contrary to my claims. Not because my statements were at all inconsistent. No, you called me a liar because the facts I was presenting disagreed with your beliefs.
I'm not sure, but are you now willing to say, having seen a more extensive section of my knowledge on this subject, that I'm not lying about knowing a substantial amount about the programs I'm talking about? And, if so, will you grant that, when I say that they've been trying to convert highly motivated gay Christians for the past 30 years without any established success except possibly in a very, very small number of cases, I'm speaking from knowledge of the subject? Or, at the very least, actually try to learn something about the subject before you make an attack on my character again?
Liar wasn't really the label I was going for. Overstater? Or exaggerator? In anycase I am willing to admit that for the time being you know more on the topic then I do, and your statement that gay therapy attempts have been fruitless is more tenable a position then my ignorance. I apologize if you felt I was going after you as a person rather then the issues you were presenting.
It just seemed you were making an all encompassing statement about the matter and I had no reason to hold your opinion in higher regard then my own.
Don't be surprised if I make it my business to know more on this topic.
Bokonon: No harm no foul Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, does someone else have a response then?
I'll lay out my position.
I'm going to leave aside the negative aspects, like not forcing your religion on others and insuring equal treatment before the law. Those seem to make up near the entirety of threads like this and, really, while I regard them as important, they don't really account for how I see this issue.
For me, it's the positives. Speaking both as a social scientist and someone whose life has been blessed with more than his fair share of happy marriages (meaning I've seen many people close to me in happy marriages, not that I've had many of my own), I think marriage, done correctly, is a wonderful thing. It brings innumerable benefits to both the people in it, the people close to the married couple, and the society as a whole.
The good stuff that comes along with being in a good marriage are such that I think nearly all people would choose that for themselves for purely selfish reasons, let alone as a way of spending one's life with and bringing joy to the person you love.
Ultimately, I can't see any reason why we should not want as many people as possible to get into good marriages. And there's seems to me to be no reason why two people being of the same sex would make it so that their joining wouldn't result in all those wonderful things about marriage nor would it make it any less likely for any other people to partake in all these wonderful things.
So, when people tell me that this isn't so, I try to figure out why they believe so. As yet, I have never been given an answer that sounds convincing to me and I've encountered a lot of reasons that are just plain false (e.g. we know that gay parents can't raise children as well as straight parents can).
Also, I have to note that many of the people who are fighting for gays not to be allowed to get married hold marriage in much lower regard than I do. I've pointed out numerous times that many of the groups that are pushing strongest against gay marriage are those who have around the highest divorce rates. OSC's essay about this makes marriage out to be this unnatural imposition that people need to be tricked or cajoled into. Many of the people I've encountered on this site and elsewhere who are anti-SSM have, when we've discussed wider issues, held that a big way to fix marriage is to outlaw divorce.
It makes me wonder at times if they're against it at least in part because they don't realize who wonderful a good marriage can be and how widespread its effects are. But, dpesite that suspicion, I do try to find out the reasons why people think it would have bad effects. I've yet to hear ones from anti-SSM people that have panned out to anything more than those based on false ideas or personal and/or religious prejudice.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Don't be surprised if I make it my business to know more on this topic.
That would suprise the heck out of me, but in a pleasant way.
Also, in this context, these:
quote:Overstater? Or exaggerator?
mean liar. I was pretty clear that I was representing myself as knowing what I was talking about. Were things otherwise, I would have intentionally been representing myself as
quote:hav[ing] extensive experience with many or even few programs designed to assist homosexuals into coming to terms with it with heterosexuality as a goal
without this being so. Dress it up how you want, that would be lying. But, hey, I'm just a guy who thinks it is extremely important to not claim to know more than he does and who makes a practice of not doing so here. If the things I represent as true disagree with your uniformed opinions, I guess it is perfectly rational and acceptable to call me a liar. I mean, dude, "even few programs"?
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
I just do not get how voting to limit the rights of a certain group of people to basic things like access to dying partners, equal treatment under tax laws, the ability to have custody of a child the person has jointly raised, etc. cannot be considered discrimination. These are things to which other couples are entitled simply because of being different genders. Having a religious conviction that it is not God's way - yes, ok, fine. By all means, do not recognize such unions as being legitimate in God's eyes and do not have them in your houses of worship. As I mentioned once before, I know that for LDS, if a marriage isn't sealed in a temple it's not eternal, etc. So to Mormons, anyone not married in a temple isn't in a real marriage anyway, and has yet to accept the true faith. And many Catholic churches do not allow mixed faith couples to marry there, or they can't marry at the altar. There is infinite room for religions to choose to recognize or not recognize unions.
There should not be infinite room for people to restrict the rights of couples based only on gender. People are free to preach against it, advise others not to, demonstrate, whatever. Voting that belief into law? No, that's acting on prejudice. How is this any different from people putting laws on the books banning cross-racial marriages? In America we may not legally discrimate against people based on things like race, disability, or gender. So even if you believe that homosexuality is a disability or a gender-belief disorder, it's still discriminatory. People are also not supposed to discriminate based on a person's religion. So a gay hiring manager should not be able to throw your resume out because you happen to be a Southern Baptist and so they s/he suspects you oppose the idea of gay unions. They should be afforded the same protection in our democracy.
Does oppostion to equal legal rights for homosexual couples boil down to anything other than unsupported fear and a belief that people's personal relgious convictions should allow them to impose those convictions on other people? This is an honest question, I've read the whole thread and I really don't understand where those who oppose it are coming from in terms of not supporting equal legal rights. Not personally recognizing, or approving of, or having in your religion? That I get.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think the argument could be that, by not actively opposing it, they would be tacitly approving it. And approval is something that would be contrary to their faith, and the laws of God, therefore, bound by that logic trap, they are forced to oppose it vigorously.
I disagree, but I certainly follow the train of logic. It makes sense.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I've pointed out numerous times that many of the groups that are pushing strongest against gay marriage are those who have around the highest divorce rates.
Which groups, again?
It's important to note that corellary != cause.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, I have to note that many of the people who are fighting for gays not to be allowed to get married hold marriage in much lower regard than I do. I've pointed out numerous times that many of the groups that are pushing strongest against gay marriage are those who have around the highest divorce rates.
Specious at best. A "group" doesn't hold marriage in regard, individuals do. Going from "a greater percentage of group X gets divorced than group Y" and "a greater percentage of people in group X than people in group Y favor banning gay marriage" to "therefore people who favor banning gay marriage get divorced at a higher rate" is an example of the ecological fallacy. This is especially true in political science, where there are thousands of documented instances of the political stances favored in, and some higher than average demographic feature of, geographic regions being negatively correlated, despite being attributes of the same population.
Further, going by this link, Catholics have the same divorce rate as atheists/agnostics and Mormons have only a slightly higher rate. Further, there is evidence that the divorce rate is lower when both spouses are of the same faith. It's not clear if that would change the relative rankings of divorce by faith group. But, if same-faith marriage correlates to religiosity (supposition - I'm not saying it does) then one might expect the group with the lower divorce rate in a denomination generally opposed to gay marriage - that is, the non-inter-faithers of that denomination - to be the group more strongly dedicated to stopping gay marriage. Again, this is supposition.
Without a study comparing divorce rates to attitudes toward legal recognition of gay marriage, there too many possibilities to be sure of the relationship.
Where's your evidence that the people "pushing strongest" against gay marriage don't hold marriage in as high regard as you?
[ October 31, 2006, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: You sound surprised. Isn't that exactly what he's been saying?
Actually, I'm not sure that is exactly what he's saying at least insofar as I'm using one definition of "legitimate" and he may be using another.
The sense I mean is "in accordance with the laws of reasoning; logically inferable; logical" and "not spurious or unjustified; genuine" (definitions #4 and #6 at dictionary.com). Unless Porter decides to clarify otherwise, I'm choosing to believe he doesn't think I'm illogical, unreasonable, spurious or fake.
However, my objection to the remark I find flippant is that in a discussion where clearly the issue is whether people have the right to marry regardless of combined genders of the couple, to disregard pages and pages of reasoned arguement with "but you can marry! A woman!" is tantamount to denying any validity at all to the reasoning I'm working with. It comes across as blithely poo-pooing my whole case, not by addressing it but by denying it wholesale with a non-sequitur. That seems disrespectful of my arguements, which is surprising to me coming from Porter. That is why I asked for further clarification rather than simply assume Porter means the worst of the various possible interpretations there may be of what he wrote.
As to legitimacy, everyone makes choices based on the knowledge they have. I believe all choices made with the knowledge at hand are legitimate (i.e. reasonable, logical, genuine) – even if those choices ultimately turn out to be mistakes, provided the ignorance upon which the mistakes were made is not willful. I think this is a valid use of the word "legitimate". To disregard this definition of legitimacy, to me, would be to call me unreasonable and/or a liar, or at the very least un-genuine and willfully ignorant. That is not a conclusion I'm just going to jump to in Porter's case just because I may disagree with him philosophically.
On the other hand, I don't think that admitting legitimacy to my arguements is the same as agreeing with them. Clearly in this discussion the different sides are working from contrary premises, but I hope that we are empathic enough to recognize legitimate arguements and choices even when we disagree with them.
Clearly some people on both sides lack such empathy. I hope I'm not one of those. I believe Porter is not one and that's why I ask for clarification when I don't understand rather than to simply assume the worst.
[edit for typo]
[ October 31, 2006, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So to Mormons, anyone not married in a temple isn't in a real marriage anyway
This is not true. It's a real marriage. It's just not one that can last into the next life.
*Or, at least, it can be. There certainly are legal marriages, such as getting married and then having it annulled within a week, that I wouldn't call real marriages.
Oh, and Karl -- I responded to your email. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
This is going back a page or so, but I wanted to comment on this snippet:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: neither state nor federal governments should be in the business of recognizing marriages, instead recognizing only civil unions which should be granted to any legal adult parties.
In principle, I agree. In practice, however, there is vast social inertia behind the use of the term "marriage" to denote an ostensibly lifelong -- or at least long-term -- committed relationship. People who get civil unions will almost certainly call themselves "married," because English lacks suitable substitute terminology.
I essentially see two groups laying claim to the ability to define the term "marriage:" governments and religious institutions. A corollary to your statement of opinion is that religious instutions have the stronger claim. Is that what you think? If so, why? I'm curious, because I actually hold the other view. I think striking the term "marriage" from law entirely would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face -- in effect, if not intent.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Another interesting (to me anyway) observation about English usage:
Not too long ago there was a lot of debate about what to call one's significant other (especially among gay men). One of the most common choices is "partner". (As in "this is my partner, Chris.") It wasn't log ago that you had to say "domestic partner" to not be confused with "business partner". Now, though, the confusion seems to have swapped places. I've twice witnessed people introduce business partners with "partner" and then backpedal with "business partner" when they get surprised or quizzical looks, and I almost never have to clarify when referring to my partner.
(In my mind, that's a "major victory for gay rights". )
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: This is going back a page or so, but I wanted to comment on this snippet:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: neither state nor federal governments should be in the business of recognizing marriages, instead recognizing only civil unions which should be granted to any legal adult parties.
In principle, I agree. In practice, however, there is vast social inertia behind the use of the term "marriage" to denote an ostensibly lifelong -- or at least long-term -- committed relationship. People who get civil unions will almost certainly call themselves "married," because English lacks suitable substitute terminology.
I essentially see two groups laying claim to the ability to define the term "marriage:" governments and religious institutions. A corollary to your statement of opinion is that religious instutions have the stronger claim. Is that what you think? If so, why? I'm curious, because I actually hold the other view. I think striking the term "marriage" from law entirely would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face -- in effect, if not intent.
Twinky, this very much involves my response to Karl on the previous page. In fact, the heart of my support for same sex civil marriage rights is that government is not defining marriage, merely providing the rules by which the government will treat each couple's marriage. To the extent such treatment can be equal, it should be.
Government has expanded into so many spheres of life that there are people who think - with some justification - that, for society to reflect the dominant mores of the people, the government must.
I have very particular ideas about what government should do and should not do. One of the things it should do is leave as much up to individual conscience as possible (where "as possible" means "to the extent the other things government should do that are more important than freedom of conscience allow" - and I don't intend to try to define that in any consistent way today).
I don't want one of the goals of government to be "make society reflect the dominant mores of the people." For one, I think it's ridiculously improbable to think that government can do so. For another, I think it minimizes freedom of conscience.
I think the fact that so many people try to get government to fill this role actually lessens the chance that society will reflect those dominant mores. It squanders energy in fights to compel, making that energy unavailable for attempts to persuade and making the energy that is available for persuasion less able to achieve its goal because of the backlash against the attempted compelling.
It seems to me that if government does define marriage, and we have a democracy, then the definition of marriage will reflect the majoirty viewpoint. On the other hand, if government merely responds to marriages in controlled ways that are directly related to government, then the freedom to individually define marriage is greater.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Twinky, this very much involves my response to Karl on the previous page. In fact, the heart of my support for same sex civil marriage rights is that government is not defining marriage, merely providing the rules by which the government will treat each couple's marriage. To the extent such treatment can be equal, it should be.
I only have a minute or two, but part of my point is that setting such rules will necessarily have an impact -- over time -- on how people view marriage, and on what people mean when they say "married."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm sure it will, but that's different, in my mind, from defining marriage.
For example, I think it ought to be possible for someone to work for the government and not have to acknowledge that two men are married. That person would have to acknowledge that they are in a civil union, though, especially if the job involved regulations that depend on union status.
If the change causes people to start using the term marriage generically, whether because of convenience or because of actual changed attitudes, I have no problem with that. However, I would have a severe problem with forcing someone to refer to something they don't consider a marriage as "marriage."
quote:Another interesting (to me anyway) observation about English usage:
Not too long ago there was a lot of debate about what to call one's significant other (especially among gay men). One of the most common choices is "partner". (As in "this is my partner, Chris.") It wasn't log ago that you had to say "domestic partner" to not be confused with "business partner". Now, though, the confusion seems to have swapped places. I've twice witnessed people introduce business partners with "partner" and then backpedal with "business partner" when they get surprised or quizzical looks, and I almost never have to clarify when referring to my partner.
Karl, that's been necessary since at least 1992 (from personal experience).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm sure it will, but that's different, in my mind, from defining marriage.
That's true. I would say that it's different in intent, but the same in effect.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For example, I think it ought to be possible for someone to work for the government and not have to acknowledge that two men are married. That person would have to acknowledge that they are in a civil union, though, especially if the job involved regulations that depend on union status.
I'm of two minds on this. What about non-religious marriage licensors?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There wouldn't be any marriage licensors at all if there weren't civil marriages, only civil unions.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Sorry to jump into this thread so late, but the other thread on gay marriage has evolved into a religion and state type debate (for which I have to accept some responsibility).
This thread seems to have a more detailed discussion of the ramifications of legalising SSM.
So I thought I might pose some questions I was left with after reading OSC's column here, because apart from the religious puritan premise that homosexuality is depraved, he proceeds to discuss SSM in rational terms everyone can sympathise with or at least understand in order to refute. As a result his essay more than anything I've read which discusses sin and abomination, shook my faith in supporting SSM.
(Incidentally, I still support SSM. I'm saying it was the most effective anti-SSM piece I've read.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but OSC's drift is that;
(1) Civilization depends heavily on a stable reproductive order (and certain restrictions on 'natural' behaviour) for its survival. (2) Marriage is the most effective and stable reproductive arrangement, and provides children with good role models. But since we send our kids to schools, society must also act in loco parentis. (3) Children in heterosexual families have a better chance of turning out to be 'civilised' citizens and good parents themselves. (4) Gay couples are less successful as gender role models than heterosexual couples. (5) The ubiquity of households broken by divorce and the corruption of society's image of the family (i.e. the adoption of gay couples as positive role models) is harmful to all children in that society.
Therefore;
(6) In the interest of maintaining the institutions and values which keep civilisations alive, gay marriages should be opposed.
Also,
(7) Legalising gay marriage will have such a staggering impact on our society that we should look into it more first and slow down. How is this democratic, anyway? (8) Marriage by definition is heterosexual, and must be a union between two people who can reproduce together. (9) There is no evidence that gay people are born gay, and adopting gay couples as positive role models will cause some children to construe homoerotic tendencies as homosexuality, thus forcing upon them a lifestyle choice.
quote: Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.
In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.
(10) Nobody said that homosexual men and women can't marry and have children. Some have dysfunctional families, but others don't.
So the implication is,
(11) We aren't infringing on their happiness by discouraging homosexuality. They would be better off, or at least civilisation would be, if they tried to fit into a normal heterosexual family model.
And sprinkled in the essay are a few dubious potshots at liberals etc.;
quote: Who do you think is volunteering for the military to defend America against our enemies? Those who believe in the teachings of politically correct college professors? Or those who believe in the traditional values that the politically correct elite has been so successful in destroying?
---
So what are your responses to these points?
Firstly, (10) and (11) are just half-hearted concessions. Basically, they ask a gay person to stop being gay and get with the program. Even if (9) is true, one can't just choose to stop being gay.
And what is the evidence relating to homosexuality being genetic or environmental, by the way? I had always assumed it was a rough 50-50 mixture, but I realise I've never seen any studies to support my guess.
I think that (1) is a reasonable statement, and (2) is true - a corollary of our biology.
For (3), I take OSC's implied working definition of 'civilised' as; supportive of the heterosexual family system and of society, should it recognise that heterosexual family as well.
So by that definition, that's probably the case. Children brought up by gay couples will likely lean towards liberalism, and that happens to clash with what OSC sees as civilised. It doesn't with my definition.
As for being poor parents, most reports conclude that children of gay or lesbian couples don't differ too much from children of heterosexual couples. So that puts me in disagreement with (4). We're less clear on whether sexual orientation is affected, but I believe that the environment and parents, yes, will have an impact.
And (5) is where I stop. Divorces, yes. Maybe gay marriages may even dilute marriage as a social institution slightly (whatever the outcome of the semantic discussion over the word 'marriage'). But OSC seems to think that the zeal of SSM supporters will turn many children gay. I'm not so sure.
In any case, I don't see gay marriage as posing a threat to the children of heterosexual couples. The whole essay is based on the premise that we should act in a way which will keep the species' life cycle going. I don't think human civilisation - or more specifically American civilisation - will end because homosexuality is finally being recognised as something other than sin. There isn't even any evidence to support the hypothesis that there will be any notable drop in birth rates.
[ November 02, 2006, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
(1) and (2) make no sense. It automatically assumes that if F/F and M/M relationships aren't legalized as marriage, then they'll just give up, marry people of the other gender, and have kids.
Is that anything more than a theoretical, hope for the best, supposition? It doesn't even make sense for the sake of wishful thinking.
(3) suggests that gay parents can't be as good as hetero parents, and what I think, what I honestly think opponents of SSM are really afraid of is that children of gay parents will end up gay themselves, and they'll outbreed the heteros and upset the world order.
I'm curious about that though. Where do all the current homosexuals come from? They are children of straight parents. Why is heterosexual parents can produce both straight and gay kids, but it's automatically assumed that gay parents will ONLY raise gay kids? It's a ridiculous assumption.
(4) Opponents of gay marriage have got to be kidding with this one. I'd argue that the majority of straight parents out there are letting society raise their kids, and not doing the job themselves, and society surely isn't the best stewared of gender models. But what I really wonder, is which gender models are we trying to honor here? Attacking gay marriages as bad stewards of gender roles presupposes that there is ONE gender role for both genders, and that all heterosexuals automatically uphold this model. So which model are we working from? 100 years ago, women were practically second class citizens in the home, and they couldn't vote. Now they are empowered, they do pretty much wnatever they want when it comes to deciding how to live their lives, and all of them have difference ideas on the role of a woman in the home. Likewise, there are tons of stay at home dads now, he isn't just the sole bread winner.
How are homosexuals supposed to embody the best gender roles when heterosexuals can't even decide for themselves what the best portrayal is?
(5) Society changes. The role of children in the family, like that of the woman and the man, has changes drastically in the last century. Society, and families, have to adapt. Families that care about their children, and try to raise them morally and to do good are still going to win out in the end. Just because homosexuality itself is against their morality, and their sense of "good," doesn't mean that the kids of those unions aren't going to be well raised, smart, and productive members of society who will go on to raise their own good generation of kids.
(6) Society, and for that matter, mankind, has survived so much more than the "threat" gay marriage poses, that I find this conclusion again laughable. Accepting homosexuality as a society isn't going to cause our downfall. There are still thousands of unadopted children in the country, and homosexual couples still have their own children through surrogates. There's nothing to support the conclusion that (6) comes to.
(7)Alright, here is a legitimate question. You have two sides, one is demanding freedom and equality, and the other one says that by granting that freedom and equality, you'll be violating their religious rights. Who wins? That is a serious issue. Ultimately I think you should always err on the side of freedom and equality. Similar arguments have been used to try to keep blacks and women subjugated, and we are better off as a society for ending that oppression. Religion and society both change and adapt over the centuries to accomodate each other. This is no different. It's the price you pay to live in a free society, that you refuse to participate in something, but allow others to have the option to.
(8) Marriage can have whatever definition the church confers upon it. The legal rights therein are guaranteed by the secular state, and religious groups have zero claim to them.
(9) We live in a free society. It doesn't really matter if they are born that way or not, it's their choice to live life that way if they so choose, and forcing them to live by the laws of someone else's religion is religious oppression. You're talking about a theory of sociology, but I don't agree with it. There are a HANDFUL of species on Earth that reproduce in a monogamous relationship. I don't see Rhinos dying out because they aren't getting married often enough. Giving everyone the option to have a gay marriage isn't going to convince someone they are gay. Hell, they are confused enough as it is. And you can flip that one easily enough. By having a society that refuses to accept homosexuality, you're forcing gays to live a straight lifestyle, thus forcing a lifestyle choice on them. Again, more freedom, rather than less, is the best course.
(11) Wow, that sounds an awful lot like the state telling you what they think is best for you and the rest of society, personal choice and happiness be damned. I mean, I know you think you know what you want out of life, but trust me, this is better. And even if you don't believe me, I'll punish you until you realize my way is best. That's the scariest idea up there. The state doesn't tell me what to do with my life. Personal freedom and personal choice is the American way of life. Stay the hell out of mine, please.
As for that last quote, I might ask: Who do you think is volunteering to fight in the army? Those who wish to uphold the American traditions of personal freedom and choice, or those who want to impose a Christian theocracy on the American people against the will of the minority?
I agree with you that the premise of the essay is faulty. I think that if gay marriage were accepted as a normal part of society, we'd blink twice at it, and move on.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Starting around here and going on for a while, there's a discussion about the research on the effects of gay parents on their kids.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: (1) and (2) make no sense. It automatically assumes that if F/F and M/M relationships aren't legalized as marriage, then they'll just give up, marry people of the other gender, and have kids.
Is that anything more than a theoretical, hope for the best, supposition? It doesn't even make sense for the sake of wishful thinking.
What do you mean? (1) just says that civilisation needs a steady flow of new babies to sustain itself, and (2) says that a father and mother bringing a child up together is the best method of child-rearing. Which reminds me of this thread. Specifically, OSC mentions that polygamy results in surplus males who don't do anything for the gene pool.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: There are still thousands of unadopted children in the country, and homosexual couples still have their own children through surrogates. There's nothing to support the conclusion that (6) comes to.
There's another important matter the SSM debate sometimes skims over - where do gay or lesbian parents get their children from anyway? Often, from orphanages or adoption services which get them from dead, irresponsible or incapable heterosexual couples.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Thanks MrSquicky.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Incidentally, here's the first thing that came up when I googled for divorce statistics by state, which I think you asked for.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Euripides -
My point was that, even if the claim in (1) and (2) are correct, they don't matter. They are talking about heterosexual relationships. Therefore they only really matter for homosexual relationships if they are denied, and are forced to go to heterosexual relationships.
Heterosexual couplings create more offspring than there are homes to raise them in. So I don't really see us running out of babies.
And while it feels right to be that a mother father household is best for raising kids, that's an oversimplistic assumption. It's not better if the father drinks and abuses the mother, it's not better if someone has a gambling problem. Granted, these things can happen to ANY kind of home, but who is to say that the benefits of a two parent multigendered home are SO MUCH better, that they are good enough to leave some kids in adoption agencies and fostercare rather than give them to loving two parent homosexual couples? Where is the proof that says THAT is a better arrangement? Where is the proof that homosexuals can't be good parents? Why aren't kids taken away from single parent homes?
No, marriage and child rearing have already changed and fractured far too much for that argument to hold water as a good argument for keeping kids away from homosexual marriages.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Specifically, OSC mentions that polygamy results in surplus males who don't do anything for the gene pool.
As far as official statistics are concerned, anyway. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Edit: This is in reply to MrSquicky.
I see you're right about the correlation. I was just wondering if you had poll results on people's opinions on SSM, state by state that could be compared.
Sorry I didn't look into this too thoroughly. I see that Wikipedia has a good overview (especially this bit), and this ABC page is useful (see especially the bottom).
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Euripides -
My point was that, even if the claim in (1) and (2) are correct, they don't matter. They are talking about heterosexual relationships. Therefore they only really matter for homosexual relationships if they are denied, and are forced to go to heterosexual relationships.
I see what you mean about (1). I should qualify my agreement with (2). I only agreed with it to the extent that marriage is more stable than other reproductive family systems, so I was only considering monogamy, polygamy, communal living etc.
But that's not what I actually said, so the misunderstanding is completely my fault.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And while it feels right to be that a mother father household is best for raising kids, that's an oversimplistic assumption. It's not better if the father drinks and abuses the mother, it's not better if someone has a gambling problem. Granted, these things can happen to ANY kind of home, but who is to say that the benefits of a two parent multigendered home are SO MUCH better, that they are good enough to leave some kids in adoption agencies and fostercare rather than give them to loving two parent homosexual couples? Where is the proof that says THAT is a better arrangement? Where is the proof that homosexuals can't be good parents? Why aren't kids taken away from single parent homes?
By disagreeing with (4 - Gay couples are less successful as gender role models than heterosexual couples.) and the latter half of (5The ubiquity of households broken by divorce and the corruption of society's image of the family (i.e. the adoption of gay couples as positive role models) is harmful to all children in that society.), I think I express my belief that homosexual couples are usually just as good at parenting as heterosexual couples.
And OSC didn't make the claim that children would be better off in orphanages than in the homes of gay couples.
---
Cheeky KoM!
Does anyone else find it amusing that there is a context-sensitive banner at the bottom of the page advertising gay/lesbian wedding rings?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Specifically, OSC mentions that polygamy results in surplus males who don't do anything for the gene pool.
I find the phrase "surplus males" to be chillingly zoological.
There is no such thing as a "surplus male" in a human society. This arguement basically assumes that the worth of a human is equal only to his value as breeding stock. This is the language of eugenics, not of reasoned debate in a free society.
In fact, OCS's entire arguement distills to the idea that the only valuable member of society is the fertile. That is one tiny step away, IMO, from deciding that not only is fertility paramount to a person's worth, but doesn't it stand to reason that better breeding stock is more valuable to the human race than inferior? You know, all those with a genetic tendency to diabetes are putting a hell of a load on our health care system, not to mention all those other evolutionarily inferior people who are weakening the race.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Not that you said I should, but I won't defend OSC's choice of words here. Nor his premise, since I disagree with it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
What are they being denied at the state level, other than the word "marriage?"
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
And people wonder why I'm so bitter and cynical towards society at large when who a person is becomes a target for opposition, oppression, and rejection.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What are they being denied at the state level, other than the word "marriage?"
Equality.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Karl's post above got me thinking ...
IS there a way to invest extra care or attention or regulation in the breeding population without inadvertently hurting or offending or dienfranchising the non-breeding population?
Just curious. Because it seems like that may be what OSC is trying, and failing, to do.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
There are tax credits for people with children. That is something that is applicable to all families with dependants, yet closed to those who do not reproduce.
Though I think "having zero children" pretty obviously doesn't mean "gay" and gay doesn't mean "unable to have children." So equating the two is kind of ... hard to follow.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What are they being denied at the state level, other than the word "marriage?"
Equality.
I don't oppose gay marriage (by which I mean, CALLING it gay marriage), and I don't support it (again, the WORD, not the institution, which I am wholeheartedly in favor of).
When it comes down to whether or not to use the word "marriage," I usually just stay on the sidelines. I think the word has inseperable religious connotations, and it might be wrong to use it to describe something those relogious institutions are expressly against. I'd fight tooth and nail to make sure all the legal rights that are bestowed on straight couplings are also extended to gay couples, but I can neither support or oppose calling it "marriage."
When it comes down to it, the government can't give you equality.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I live in New Jersey, and I think that if we are going to call a civil marriage between two gay partners a "civil union", rather than a "marriage", then, in fairness, we should call ALL civil marriages "civil unions", and let "marriage" be a label given by the clergy.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"When it comes down to it, the government can't give you equality."
They cant' give equality, but they can treat people with equality.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm fine with "civil unions" because we already have "marriage" in any sense that is distinct from "civil unions". As I've said multiple times on this board, the "religious" arguement against "marriage" has already been lost. Gays have already been able to "marry" in certain churches for over 15 years. For someone to say that "isn't marriage" is flat out, unmitigated, religious bigotry. It's exactly the same as declaring any other religious ceremony invalid simply because you don't agree with it. It's like slyly commenting that all those Catholics aren't really "baptised" because, you know, they don't really do it right.
And the government has no practical authority to regulate speech. You can bet your rhinestone tiara that if Chris and I get a "civil union" we are going to tell people that we are "married". I can't make anyone else do that, but I feel confident in saying that with the sole exception of those who are making a political point, everyone else will call us "married" too. A few niggling preachers will do their best to maintain the distinction, but I bet that will become fewer and fewer as pointing out the distinction begins to more pronouncedly stink of the sanctimony it is increasingly perceived to be. It's a simple fact of linguistic evolution that the vast majority are going to choose to say "married" rather than "civilly unionized" in every-day speech.
quote:IS there a way to invest extra care or attention or regulation in the breeding population without inadvertently hurting or offending or dienfranchising the non-breeding population?
I don't know. Perhaps there is. However, I don't see the real value in such a strong desire to provide those things with the included intent of denying them to the homoseuxal population which is more precisely what is being attempted. I almost wrote "denying them to the non-breeding population", but that's not right. No one is really attempting to deny them to non-breeding hetersexual couples, only to homosexual couples, breeding or not. In my opinion, you have to first establish why this exclusion is necessary before I'll buy into the assertion that the arguements are actually attempts to "invest extra care or attention". As it stands, they've just been about exclusion and marginalization of the minority in the misguided name of "protecting" a majority that has heretofore shown little interest in "protecting" itself from anything except sharing a word.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, you can call it what you want but you're not married. A marriage is a legally recognized union, not merely religious in nature. A civil union is the same thing in effect, but it's not a marriage. Until the laws are changed, that's the deal. If homosexuals are content with civil unions and are just going to go around calling it marriage, then that's the end of it. But if they're not content, then they'll keep fighting for full marriage.
Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism. If the state decides to legalize gay marriage by enacting laws to that effect through the legislative process, then great. But when judges make that decision for the population and then order the legislation to make the laws (as has happened in one state so far), we have left the realm of democracy. And that is what I hate about so many of the activist groups out there, not just the homosexual ones. They are using the one unelected branch of the government to impose their will on the majority. If that's how you want to get things done, then shame on you, I say.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
How did this play out in terms of the Civil Rights movement, in your mind? *interested
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:They are using the one unelected branch of the government to impose their will on the majority.
If you replace "impose their will on" with "defend their rights from," I think you might stumble across another way of looking at the issue.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: Well, you can call it what you want but you're not married.
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Four of the definitions of "marriage" at dictionary.com disagree with your narrow view of the word, however. You can't stop the language no matter how much you'd like to.
Additionally, you're using a definition of "fascism" that you're not likely to find in any dictionary. You are, of course, free to do so, but don't expect many people to understand you or agree with you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
How did this play out in terms of the Civil Rights movement, in your mind? *interested
I'm actually kinda undecided on the civil rights movement. Some days I think, "Nobody is above the law." and "The right place for good men is in jail, going to jail had to be the right course of action." and the next week I think, "Thats just crazy, of course they were justified in breaking a bad law, we were wrong to put them in jail."
I guess its the age old debate of "Is America a pure democracy lead by the people, or is America really a society where the intellectual elite step in when they must, and for the most part, power is with the people."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Why does it have to be the "intellectual elite" that steps in, in your view? Why not simply "good people" or "a moral minority" or something?
You seem to have taken the phrase "intellectual elite" from a near-meaningless group label to a de-facto meaningless buzzword in this context.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
BB: We're a constitutional democratic republic.
That means we set out our standards before hand (the constitution) and then we make the laws. If our laws don't meet our standards, Judges make sure they do.
Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong and sometimes they're a little of both.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Karl: I don't think the framers of the constitution ever meant for the common people to be able to rule, in fact I am quite certain they set things up so that "sensible men" could stop the tyranny of the majority. But I have a kinda weird belief that Americans should live for now and bullocks to what the framers intended, if we have a better way of doing it now we ought to do it that way its not like anybody pretends they or their constitution was a perfect document.
I don't believe in "good people" stepping in and even less in a "moral minority" its just too ugly if one minority group gets to step on the others.
Call it my religious upbringing but your standard member of the church has no say in how it should be run. Sustaining the prophet appears democratic but really if you object all that happens is you are asked privately why you so do. Its in the hands of of God's chosen or "intellectual elite" as to who is in charge. Though I do remember when JS was murdered and they basically had a town meeting to decide whether to follow BY or SR, I still am not sure about the doctrinal basis for that.
I just feel the average person understands what is important to them, and they should be allowed to operate within that hemisphere. But when it comes to awareness of all that is important the average American is woefully ignorant and always has been, perhaps always will be.
If I must tolerate one group intervening in what *I* want, I'd rather it be the intellectual elite then any other group that I can devise.
Pix: See again I think the constitution is a good thing, and there a pluses that it is so hard to amend. But I've heard so much debate about the obscurity of say the 2nd amendment that I think the people need to decide what the amendment SHOULD mean. The only argument I hear for keeping things as they are is, "The founding fathers intended..." Why should they get to lay out so much new doctrine and radical change and then down the road we can do no better? There are people just as smart as those men, and more so, I really think the constitution is due for some radical revision. You could probably call SCOTUS the "intellectual elite" just as you could call The Senate and The Presidents Cabinet the same thing.
I mean politically the constitution has been amazing. But economically and in regards to the civil rights its woefully vague and hard to use.
Probably should have said this at the beginning but I really don't have all my opinions in political science nailed out, thats why its my major I suppose.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Resh, interesting opinion.
quote:Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
Unfortunately our judicial system is far from "fascist".
A fascist judge does not base his decisions on the Law, but bases it on what the political leaders tell him to.
A fascist would not wait for some person to proclaim their right, but would make proclamations on their own.
A fascist judge would have a strong enforcement arm at their disposal. Our judicial system must rely on those in the executive branch to enforce any of their decisions.
I can think of two times in history where this came into play.
Brown vs Board of Education-when the decision was made desegragating the schools, many feared that the decision would be totally ignored by the country. Only the decision of the Federal Executive branch managed to enforce this ruling.
The theft of the property of Native American's in Georgia was deemed entirely unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. They ordered the President to cease and desist all attempts at removing the native population.
President Andrew Jackson ignored the court, and set his troops to march the peaceful Indians along the death march that became known as the Trail of Tears.
Now that, my friend, is fascism.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dan: Not to mention Jackson's response "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
It stinks of the same logic as people who say, "The president wants to send my boy to Iraq, lets see HIM spend some time in the trenches!"
It just makes no sense to me at all, we might as well have soldiers say, "They want me to die for my country, well then let me be in charge of the country for awhile!"
But do you agree that the court systems CAN be abused, and policy that is not in the publics best interests implemented?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dan, revisit Dred Scott for a look at the harm a court can do when it acts to protect someone's rights.
I believe that judicial review of law and government constitutionality is absolutely essential. I don't think, however, that people fully appreciate the possibility of tyrany it creates nor the extraordinary nature of the judicial review remedy.
Justices are: 1) not elected, 2) appointed during their "good behavior" (essentially life), 3) capable of overriding any politically accountable body, and 4) unreviewable absent 2/3 of congress and 3/4 the state legislatures or 3/4 the state legislatures and a constitutional convention.
The purpose of the court's judicial review is to balance conflicting rights of different people. Dred Scott upheld the property rights of the slaveholder over the rights of the slave - in this case by denying that the slave had ANY rights at all.
One of the rights that needs to be balanced is the right to certain forms of input into the government: to vote for Representatives, Senators, and (indirectly) Presidents with certain powers and to have input into the constitutionally guaranteed state republican forms of government.
Every exercise of judicial review to strike down a statute or other act of those elected officials requires the court to subjegate this right to another. Sometimes this is a good thing. We subjegate the right to free speech to the right of an individual to not have harmful lies spread about him (i.e., we legally sanction libel). There have been many cases where the decision to subjegate the right of input into government to an individual's particular right. That's fine.
But I want people to think about it as limiting rights. I want people to consider it extraordinary when it's done. And I really, really want people (some already do this well) to separate their desired policy outcome from how they determine whether judicial review should be invoked.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag,
I agree the decision in Dredd Scott really damaged the rights of the slaves. On the other hand the court really just represented the people of its time. Do you think an elected group from that time period would have given the slaves any better answer?
When someone argues how the voters should have ultimate power over everything, remember how many problems the courts have solved that scared legislators were afraid to tackle. Unpopular decisions are inevitable. If a judge is more worried about his popularity than about the constitution, which will he support?
I disagree that a constitutional amendment is the only thing that can change a Judicial mandate. Usually it is a simple change in the wording of the law that will determine if it is constitutional or not. Yet even those small changes seem to be too much for our legislators.
An example has been some of the abortion laws. SCOTUS has given guidelines on what it would approve--mainly the safety and privacy of the mother foremost. Yet the laws that are overturned by SCOTUS often leave out, not the delicate matter of privacy, but the obvious matter of the mother's safety.
All that said, let me go further to point out that I am in favor of a better way of overseeing judges. If we could make impeachment and discipline easier to accomplish, but with little or no association with court decisions, I would be welcome to that. I don't like the idea of senile judges sexually harrasing interns and getting away with it. I also don't like the idea that Judges get kicked of the bench because they put famous people in jail.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you think an elected group from that time period would have given the slaves any better answer?
Better? Yes. It wasn't a very good answer, but it was a better one. The very fact that the court was striking down laws and, in doing so, worsened the plight of slaves demonstrates that.
quote:When someone argues how the voters should have ultimate power over everything, remember how many problems the courts have solved that scared legislators were afraid to tackle.
Which is why I am in favor of judicial review. I just want people - judges especially - to appreciate the enormity of what this means. ANd what it means is that 9 unelected officials with life terms can override the will of a supermajority.
quote:I disagree that a constitutional amendment is the only thing that can change a Judicial mandate. Usually it is a simple change in the wording of the law that will determine if it is constitutional or not. Yet even those small changes seem to be too much for our legislators.
What you describe is not changing the mandate, it's conceding to it.
quote:An example has been some of the abortion laws. SCOTUS has given guidelines on what it would approve--mainly the safety and privacy of the mother foremost. Yet the laws that are overturned by SCOTUS often leave out, not the delicate matter of privacy, but the obvious matter of the mother's safety.
This is only true about the late-term abortion bans. Further, abortion is one of the few areas where the court will not read constitutional limitations into the law in order to uphold the law.
There is no way to ban pre-viability abortions in the U.S. right now, and the only way to change this is a new SCOTUS decision or a constitutional amendment.
quote:All that said, let me go further to point out that I am in favor of a better way of overseeing judges.
The change I seek is attitudinal more than procedural or structural. I want us to view judicial review almost as we view use of violence - something that requires extraordinary justification and is indicative that the system has gone terribly awry.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
How did this play out in terms of the Civil Rights movement, in your mind? *interested
I'm actually kinda undecided on the civil rights movement. Some days I think...
Thanks for the explanation.
Just curious -- are you coming out as Reshpeckobiggle, or did you find the question also worth answering? (*honest question, was simply wondering, and thanks regardless)
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: And the government has no practical authority to regulate speech. You can bet your rhinestone tiara that if Chris and I get a "civil union" we are going to tell people that we are "married". I can't make anyone else do that, but I feel confident in saying that with the sole exception of those who are making a political point, everyone else will call us "married" too. A few niggling preachers will do their best to maintain the distinction, but I bet that will become fewer and fewer as pointing out the distinction begins to more pronouncedly stink of the sanctimony it is increasingly perceived to be. It's a simple fact of linguistic evolution that the vast majority are going to choose to say "married" rather than "civilly unionized" in every-day speech.\
I feel the exact same way. What they call it holds little importance, in my eyes, as a name is a name is a name. A rose is, after all, still a rose even if I called it "Bob."
All I'd be interested in are the benefits bestowed by the government, and even then, only the essential ones, such as hospital visitation rights. I don't think anyone can say they'd be proud of themselves if they got to make sure a gay couple couldn't spend their last moments with each other.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Just curious -- are you coming out as Reshpeckobiggle, or did you find the question also worth answering? (*honest question, was simply wondering, and thanks regardless)
Bump, because I'd also like an answer to this question.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I'm slowly working my through more of the thread. These "gems" caught my eye:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This is all I have to add about the argument, "SSM now, legal bestiality later." Slippery slopes are often logical fallacies, but even a casual study of history, especially when it comes to law, shows that a decision with a goal in mind, OFTEN has unforeseen consequences.
Animals do not have legal rights and are not recognized by the law to be valid for entering into contracts. Human US citizens, however, do have the ability to enter into contractual obligations.
Unless you're equating gays to animals?
Also, slippery slope arguments can't be seen as prevalent. Stopping gay marriage on the grounds that it may cause "immoral" conduct later in life is just too open. I could, conversely, try to ban practicing Mormonism on the grounds that it could one day lead to eugenics and the mass eradication of homosexuals. History has shown Christians to do both, after all.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married.
Only to members of the same sex.
Oh, GOD. Please, tell me he didn't just us this bullshit phrase.
Dear God in Heaven, if I hear this one more time, violence WILL ensue. *twitch* I only wish I still had a post I made where I dealt with someone who brought up this wonderful argument. It was so beautiful... not only did I answer him word for word, I completely shoved him off his High Horse.
Anyways, this argument is about as valid as my saying you're allowed to say whatever you want, as long as it's from a pre-picked list of one thousand phrases. You're free to say whatever you want, of course! Just from within that list.
[ December 20, 2006, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Hitoshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I only wish I still had a post I made where I dealt with someone who brought up this wonderful argument. It was so beautiful... not only did I answer him word for word, I completely shoved his pompous ass off his High Horse.
Talking about how well you could refute another's position while calling names and using profanity isn't very convincing.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I only wish I still had a post I made where I dealt with someone who brought up this wonderful argument. It was so beautiful... not only did I answer him word for word, I completely shoved his pompous ass off his High Horse.
Talking about how well you could refute another's position while calling names and using profanity isn't very convincing.
Point taken. I edited a bit. However, expressing my frustration through profanity doesn't affect the main point behind my argument. I was more talking to myself than anyone else there, but I just wish I could remember what I'd said so I could use it here, as the situation fits.
I'm sorry for getting riled up, but seeing as how much this topic means to me and having gone through my own personal hell for the last five years because of people acting like mr_porteiro_head, it becomes clearer why I react strongly. It's because of people who have holier-than-thou complexes like that that I'm as bitter and cynical towards religion as I am.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I'm sorry for getting riled up, but seeing as how much this topic means to me and having gone through my own personal hell for the last five years because of people acting like mr_porteiro_head, it becomes clearer why I react strongly. It's because of people who have holier-than-thou complexes like that that I'm as bitter and cynical towards religion as I am.
Hitoshi, I know this is from a stranger and rather out of left field (if I have the metaphor correct), but you might be finding youself in somewhat of a quagmire of multiple layers of misinterpretation. For what it's worth, m_p_h is often take to be saying something he isn't. He is an engineer and almost completely literal in comunication (that is, like me, he says things and means something very precisely, but he is more likely than most -- for whatever reason -- to be taken at other than face value).
The way this works out can be quite unexpected. Telperion and KarlEd are probably two of our most engaging and thoughtful out gay posters at Hatrack, and m_p_h is a very dear friend of both of them. This goes both ways, and it is a relaitonship not lightly earned in either direction between any of these men.
Of course, this does not mean that anyone else must be friends with any given person. I just wanted to give you a little bit of contex tthat might not yet be available in your readings.
(Welcome to Hatrack. <--- Edited to add: whoops! For some reason, I thought you were new. My apologies. Well, welcome anyway.)
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:I'm sorry for getting riled up, but seeing as how much this topic means to me and having gone through my own personal hell for the last five years because of people acting like mr_porteiro_head, it becomes clearer why I react strongly. It's because of people who have holier-than-thou complexes like that that I'm as bitter and cynical towards religion as I am.
Hitoshi, I know this is from a stranger and rather out of left field (if I have the metaphor correct), but you might be finding youself in somewhat of a quagmire of multiple layers of misinterpretation. For what it's worth, m_p_h is often take to be saying something he isn't. He is an engineer and almost completely literal in comunication (that is, like me, he says things and means something very precisely, but he is more likely than most -- for whatever reason -- to be taken at other than face value).
The way this works out can be quite unexpected. Telperion and KarlEd are probably two of our most engaging and thoughtful out gay posters at Hatrack, and m_p_h is a very dear friend of both of them. This goes both ways, and it is a relaitonship not lightly earned in either direction between any of these men.
Of course, this does not mean that anyone else must be friends with any given person. I just wanted to give you a little bit of contex tthat might not yet be available in your readings.
(Welcome to Hatrack. <--- Edited to add: whoops! For some reason, I thought you were new. My apologies. Well, welcome anyway.)
Then I'm glad m_p_h gets along well with KarlEd, and I apologize for misinterpreting him.
I've just seen logic like that used so often to be snide and contemptuous towards gays that it's become a major soft spot with me. I can't even describe how many times people have used statements like that hatefully towards me in the name of this religion or that.
m_p_h, if I've misunderstood you, then I do apologize. I don't want to misconstrue anyone.
I guess I'm just not used to Hatrackian debates. It seems there's an underlying sense of respect here, and sadly, that's so foreign to me that I react much more strongly then I should. *sighs* Two days and I've already made myself look and sound like an asshole. Terrific. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Then I'm glad m_p_h gets along well with KarlEd, and I apologize for misinterpreting him.
I've just seen logic like that used so often to be snide and contemptuous towards gays that it's become a major soft spot with me. I can't even describe how many times people have used statements like that hatefully towards me in the name of this religion or that.
I can certainly understand the reaction, then.
quote:m_p_h, if I've misunderstood you, then I do apologize. I don't want to misconstrue anyone.
(this was Well Done)
quote:I guess I'm just not used to Hatrackian debates. It seems there's an underlying sense of respect here, and sadly, that's so foreign to me that I react much more strongly then I should. *sighs* Two days and I've already made myself look and sound like an asshole. Terrific.
*gently
I think it will be okay. You seem quite authentic, and friends can deal with authentic emotions. It would be posturing that is hard to maintain a friendship through. [not necessarily this]
So, Hitoshi, you've been around for over a year? Have I just had my head in the sand, or have I been away while you've been posting? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
CT, at least 50 of his 72 posts are from the past month. I think what we have here is a Former Lurker. Welcome to full-fledged posting status, Hitoshi.
Don't worry. Lots of us make strong impressions when we first start to post. I know I came in with both guns blazing. Just take a deep breath, relax a little, and get used to the ambiance.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: CT, at least 50 of his 72 posts are from the past month. I think what we have here is a Former Lurker.
*smile
(and rereading the above, I appear to be unable to spell or otherwise write korreckt)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Neither can I. Fortunately, my spell-checker speaks English very goodly.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
How did this play out in terms of the Civil Rights movement, in your mind? *interested
I'm actually kinda undecided on the civil rights movement. Some days I think...
Thanks for the explanation.
Just curious -- are you coming out as Reshpeckobiggle, or did you find the question also worth answering? (*honest question, was simply wondering, and thanks regardless)
Erm... at the risk of exposing my idiocy, I do not understand what you are asking, could you rephrase? TIA!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
CT asked Reshpeck a question. You answered it.
Are you Resh, or did you just also feel like answering her question?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally Posted by Blackblade: TIA!
This Is Africa?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks In Advance.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm not BlackBlade.
There are parallels between homosexual marriage today and the civil rights movement of the 60's. But there is a major difference that I will address at the end of this. I would also like to say that I never expressed my opinion about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual marriage. I expressed my belief that using an unelected and unaccountable branch of government to impose a right that is recognized by a small minority onto the remaining majority of a population is fascist. If homosexuals want to legalize gay marriage, maybe they should use the constitutionally explicit right to free speech to convince the rest of us that this is a law that should be passed by the elected legislature, rather than invoking some fabricatedrights that the framers of the constitution surrepititiously included in the text, only to be discovered by our more enlightened judges of today. Simliar to the "right to privacy" that allows a woman to kill her unborn child. That was what Madison meant when he said soldiers are not to be quartered in private homes, you know.
I say this because smart and honest people are on both sides of this issue. Same goes for abortion and intelligent design. Segregation laws, abolishment, womens sufferage; not so much. Those are examples of where judicial action was right and effective.
[ December 21, 2006, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Reshpeckobiggle ]
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:They are using the one unelected branch of the government to impose their will on the majority.
If you replace "impose their will on" with "defend their rights from," I think you might stumble across another way of looking at the issue.
You should give it a try, mister open-minded.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You could have said "is not!" and stomped your foot and sounded more mature.
Seriously, what is considered irresponsible judicial activism by one group is very easily considered an absolutely necessary defense of Constitutional rights by another group. The latter group isn't seeking, by and large, to "impose their will;" they're seeking to defend themselves from the majority. That the majority also feels under attack -- or at least counter-attacked -- is the root of this confusion.
quote:I say this because smart and honest people are on both sides of this issue. Same goes for abortion and intelligent design. Segregation laws, abolishment, womens sufferage; not so much. Those are examples of where judicial action was right and effective.
You keep throwing around accusations of "fascism," but based on this quote I wonder how well you understand what fascism is. After all, basing the rightness of any judicial decision on the intelligence and honesty of the people negatively affected by that decision is almost textbook fascism.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There are parallels between homosexual marriage today and the civil rights movement of the 60's. But there is a major difference that I will address at the end of this. ....Segregation laws, abolishment, womens sufferage; not so much. Those are examples of where judicial action was right and effective.
So, what is the major difference? *interested
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm not BlackBlade.
I expressed my belief that using an unelected and unaccountable branch of government to impose a right that is recognized by a small minority onto the remaining majority of a population is fascist.
This isn't true on its face, or in the details. The judiciary DOES have checks on it (they can be impeached).
-Bok
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:I guess I'm just not used to Hatrackian debates. It seems there's an underlying sense of respect here, and sadly, that's so foreign to me that I react much more strongly then I should. *sighs* Two days and I've already made myself look and sound like an asshole. Terrific.
*gently
I think it will be okay. You seem quite authentic, and friends can deal with authentic emotions. It would be posturing that is hard to maintain a friendship through. [not necessarily this]
So, Hitoshi, you've been around for over a year? Have I just had my head in the sand, or have I been away while you've been posting?
Thanks for being kind. It's very nice of ya, and I appreciate it.
Yeah, I've been around for a year or so, but I was mostly a lurker and only popped my head in on occasion. But topics like this made me wanna start debating, so I went ahead and started.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: CT, at least 50 of his 72 posts are from the past month. I think what we have here is a Former Lurker. Welcome to full-fledged posting status, Hitoshi.
Don't worry. Lots of us make strong impressions when we first start to post. I know I came in with both guns blazing. Just take a deep breath, relax a little, and get used to the ambiance.
Thanks.
I think I've made my strong impression then. I'll cool my jets a bit and try again then.
quote:Seriously, what is considered irresponsible judicial activism by one group is very easily considered an absolutely necessary defense of Constitutional rights by another group. The latter group isn't seeking, by and large, to "impose their will;" they're seeking to defend themselves from the majority. That the majority also feels under attack -- or at least counter-attacked -- is the root of this confusion.
I have to agree with Tom here. It's not so much about people trying to "impose their will" as it is fighting to defend their rights from what they see is an unfair measure meant only to oppress, i.e. the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Now stop and consider this for a moment: what good comes from marginalizing, alienating, and hurting an already discriminated against minority? How is this any better than countries that fine their citizens for having homosexual intercourse? If we go by popular slippery-slope arguments and instead apply them to banning gay marriage, what's to prevent the re-instituting of sodomy laws? Making queer-bashing legal? Practicing eugenics and sterilization on gays?
Look at this way: South Africa, a country that was terribly "behind the times" in racial and social rights, has just legalized gay unions without forcing churches to perform ceremonies. We're now behind a country that had apartheid until the 80s and 90s.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
CT: Oh I thought it was worth answering, my statement was actually a question as I'd love to know other's opinions on the matter.
I don't know why I felt impelled to answer a question directed to Resh, in retrospect I'm kinda embarrassed TBH.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: CT: Oh I thought it was worth answering, my statement was actually a question as I'd love to know other's opinions on the matter.
I don't know why I felt impelled to answer a question directed to Resh, in retrospect I'm kinda embarrassed TBH.
No, no, that's fine. I'm just used to people making some sort of comment if they are answering a question addressed to another person (such as, "Well, I'm not so-and-so, but ..." or "I know you were asking so-and-so, but I thought I'd chime in with ...") No biggie. Just curious.
It isn't mandatory to add a disclaimer at the beginning -- the lack of it was merely unexpected. Thanks for the clarification. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
CT, the major difference is at the end of my post. I didn't really explain it very well, though.
I remember a stand-up comedienne talking about how some relative of hers would say the most horrible things about people but would finish by saying "Bless his heart," and so it was ok. Anyway, same principle here, and you do this a lot, Tom.
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: You could have said "is not!" and stomped your foot and sounded more mature.
I'm blowing this out of proportion by comparing it to "you know he was such a bad alcoholic, that's why he beats his wife and kids, bless his heart," but that little smiley face doesn't make me think that you were joking.
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm not BlackBlade.
I expressed my belief that using an unelected and unaccountable branch of government to impose a right that is recognized by a small minority onto the remaining majority of a population is fascist.
This isn't true on its face, or in the details. The judiciary DOES have checks on it (they can be impeached).
-Bok
Yeah, sure, and that happens often enough to convince the population that our judges are held to any sort of account. Have you read some of the reasoning by some of our highest judges? The majority opinion during Roe v. Wade invoked "the mystery of life" as part of it's reasoning. What a joke. These liberal activist judges should be laughed out of town, but the fawning media just heaps the praise on liberals for being so brave. Well, it is a brave new world we're being introduced to, so maybe it is accurate. What will tomorrow hold for us? Oh, I can't wait. "You got to admit, it's getting better... getting better all the time."
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
What did I mean by that last thing I said, anyway? Civilization reached it's peak during World War 2, because that was the last time true evil reached such a level of power, and the rest of the world was able to stand up to it and make the sacrifices required to defeat it. It's happening again, and we will not persevere this time.
The bastion of rightousness in this world (that's us) has no moral backbone anymore. Look at our children's role models. Our Teen USA and Miss USA are making out with each other in nightclubs and having orgies back at their apartments. Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, God help us. Gangtas and drug addicts are the heroes. College students getting class credit for egging the hearse of a fallen soldier. Sedition and treason is not punished. Abortiing babies. "But the woman's right!" IT'S A BABY!!! Murderers. And we stand by and let it happen. Even actively support it. Evil.
Homosexuality is not a cause, it is a symptom. Moral relativism is the cause. We have no moral compass anymore, because the forces of secularization are outlawing the source of the values from which the greatness of this country was founded. The Bible and our judeo-christian values were our strength, and secularism is a cancer that is destroying us. Your gonna win this Tom, and the rest of you "progressive" types. Your rhetoric is great. And mark my words, the spoils of war you win will be a destroyed nation, economic collapse, and the option of accepting Allah as your God and Muhommed is his prophet, or a sword through your neck.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Then how are we the bastion of righteousness?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: CT, the major difference is at the end of my post. I didn't really explain it very well, though.
Where? What reason? I know this must be quite irritating to you, but I honestly am not trying to be obtuse. And it is, I think, an important point.
Here is what I read:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There are parallels between homosexual marriage today and the civil rights movement of the 60's. But there is a major difference that I will address at the end of this.
(that was the introduction)
quote:I would also like to say that I never expressed my opinion about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual marriage. I expressed my belief that using an unelected and unaccountable branch of government to impose a right that is recognized by a small minority onto the remaining majority of a population is fascist. If homosexuals want to legalize gay marriage, maybe they should use the constitutionally explicit right to free speech to convince the rest of us that this is a law that should be passed by the elected legislature, rather than invoking some fabricatedrights that the framers of the constitution surrepititiously included in the text, only to be discovered by our more enlightened judges of today. Simliar to the "right to privacy" that allows a woman to kill her unborn child. That was what Madison meant when he said soldiers are not to be quartered in private homes, you know.
(that was an aside, where you advanced the (side) argument that homosexuals should try to convince others by talking, not by enforcement through law)
quote:I say this because smart and honest people are on both sides of this issue. Same goes for abortion and intelligent design. Segregation laws, abolishment, womens sufferage; not so much. Those are examples of where judicial action was right and effective.
(here you state that the gay marriage/civil union movement is different from women's sufferage, abolition, and the anti-segregation movement, but the claim that they are different isn't the same as explaining how or why they are different)
I just don't see it. Can you maybe restate the reason why again, in just a sentence for me?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I just said that there is a major difference, that smart and honest people are on both sides of the homosexual marriage issue, and therefore it should be a matter for the legislature to decide. Smart and honest people were only on one side of the segregation issue, and so it was good that it wasn't left up to the legislature in that case.
Of course, this is a pretty weak argument I am making here. Pretty subjective; really more a statement of opinion. So don't try and engage me on this point, because I will abandon it in a formal argument.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Then how are we the bastion of righteousness?
We were. Not anymore. We are unable to fight the good fight. To many sissy pacifists who will only stand up to people that wont fight back.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I knew something was wrong.
The civil rights movement WAS decided in the legislature. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 64, I think. That was the one where the *ahem* Democrats filibustered.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So there were NO smart and honest people on the other side of segregation, sufferage or slavery? None at ALL?
That's not to say I think those people were right, but I think the people who are against equal rights for gay people are just as wrong.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I did say that this was more a matter of opinion on my part. No, I don't think anyone could be both smart and honest and still support segregation laws.
[edit: to clarify] Supporters of segregation and slavery were either bad or stupid people. Womens sufferage, maybe not. I disagree, but I can see how someone could honestly believe that giving women the right to vote would have been bad for the nation. They don't have to fight our wars, for instance.
But if you think that people who are against equal rights for homosexuals are wrong, you may be right. But making the claim that homosexuality is morally equivilent to heterosexuality, while not neccessarily untrue, is not a given. Smart and honest people can argue the point.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Many of them pulled biblical justification just as people are using biblical justification against gay people today.
Do you really think the pro-segregation people were dumber and less honest than the anti-gay people are today?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I did say that this was more a matter of opinion on my part. No, I don't think anyone could be both smart and honest and still support segregation laws.
Hmmm. Nobody who thought women would not benefit from the right to vote was "smart and honest?" Really? Nobody was acting in good faith?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, I rescinded that, Claudia. About womens suffrage.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
FYI, people were drug addicts long, long before World War II. It's just that a lot of substances weren't yet involved in legislation and were very, very, very, very widely used.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Many of them pulled biblical justification just as people are using biblical justification against gay people today.
Do you really think the pro-segregation people were dumber and less honest than the anti-gay people are today?
Dumber or less honest, yes.
Let me say something. This is my opinion, and I said as much. But this is what people want to debate me on. I even said it wouldn't hold up as a formal argument. So why latch on to that?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: FYI, people were drug addicts long, long before World War II. It's just that a lot of substances weren't yet involved in legislation and were very, very, very, very widely used.
Never said they weren't. But it wasn't glorified. Neither was being a criminal, or a whore.
And I don't know if drugs were very, very, very, very widely used. Maybe just very, very. But even then, I don't think so. Where do you get that idea?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by pH: FYI, people were drug addicts long, long before World War II. It's just that a lot of substances weren't yet involved in legislation and were very, very, very, very widely used.
Never said they weren't. But it wasn't glorified. Neither was being a criminal, or a whore.
It wasn't glorified? So it's okay that people used to give morphine to their infants to keep them quiet because...it wasn't "glorified?" That's a better situation? It was sold to people as a miracle tonic!
I've got to say, I'm a little afraid of your version of the world.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Ehh, I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, you have made this quite clear. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Ehh, I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest.
Morphine was sold as a cure-all to people before there was legislation to regulate such things. Women especially were addicted to it. Opiate use was very, very widespread, and often women would give opiates to their young children to keep them quiet. Thus, many children grew up addicted to opiates.
I really don't understand this whole "age of lead" attitude that people seem to take. The world's not exactly plummeting downhill. Things are just different. Like opiates are controlled substances.
-pH
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Resh: So you can honestly and intellgently be against equal rights for one set of people (cuz, ya know, they're DIRTY) and you can't be honestly and intellegently be against another set of people?
I'm latching on to this because I'm insulted.
The whole idea that equal rights are something we should be *debating* is insulting. We're just as much people as the rest of you lot and we deserve the same damn rights as you.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
And what are you afraid of? My version of the world where people weren't sold morphine as a miracle tonic and gave it to their babies?
Are you high?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And what are you afraid of? My version of the world where people weren't sold morphine as a miracle tonic and gave it to their babies?
Are you high?
...I'm afraid of your idea that the world was improving up until the Second World War, after which time it went on a severe decline.
Oh yeah, I'm high, like, all the time, man. Pass me those Funyuns.
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
No, I think she means your version of the world being better at a time in which people gave opiates to their infants, as opposed to the current situation being the fall of civilization.
Jeez, fifty years ago it was legal to rape and beat your wife. Ah, the good old days.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Resh: So you can honestly and intellgently be against equal rights for one set of people (cuz, ya know, they're DIRTY) and you can't be honestly and intellegently be against another set of people?
I'm latching on to this because I'm insulted.
The whole idea that equal rights are something we should be *debating* is insulting. We're just as much people as the rest of you lot and we deserve the same damn rights as you.
Look, I never said that I thinkk homosexuals should be discriminated against. You're are assuming that because I'm against homosexual marriage that I'm for discrimination. Marriage is between a man and a woman. You want to change that. As far as I'm concerned, you may as well be making the argument that marriage can be between a man and a fish, or a man and his sister. That's not what marriage is. It probably will be one day, but that doesn't make it right. I'm sorry if you are insulted, but I'm pissed off about what has happened to this country.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, I rescinded that, Claudia. About womens suffrage.
Fair enough. Sorry I missed that.
So, what's the difference between gay marriage/civil unions via the courts and women's sufferage via the courts, again?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
pH, and Olivet... I don't think you guys are idiots. But don't make up stuff. "Jeez, fifty years ago it was legal to rape and beat your wife. Ah, the good old days." That is the most ridiculous and tired straw man argument ever. Get in the game.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, I rescinded that, Claudia. About womens suffrage.
Fair enough. Sorry I missed that.
So, what's the difference between gay marriage/civil unions via the courts and women's sufferage via the courts, again?
You didn't miss it, I think I added it in an edit.
The difference is something I woke up to and realized while I was writing, and that is the fact that womens suffrage and civil rights were acts passed by the legislature. I don't know what I was talking about prior, so if you would, please ignore.
[edit:] Suffrage was an amendment, not an act.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Resh: We are not into beatiality or incest. We fall in love just like you people do. We want the same rights and obligations.
All you're doing is stacking insult upon insult.
Giving us the same rights as you won't hurt you one whit. All it will do is strengthen our families, because that's what marriage does. Brings stability and strength to a relationship.
Denying us equal rights *is* discrimination. That's like saying "I don't got nuttin' against them there black folks, I just don't want 'em votin'! *spit*"
"What's happened to this country"... Are hordes of locusts consuming children out of their cribs because gays are getting married in Massachusettes? What could you possibly be thinking?
Do you even read what you say?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: pH, and Olivet... I don't think you guys are idiots. But don't make up stuff. "Jeez, fifty years ago it was legal to rape and beat your wife. Ah, the good old days." That is the most ridiculous and tired straw man argument ever. Get in the game.
So we've made up that these things happened? Seriously?
-pH
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, I rescinded that, Claudia. About womens suffrage.
Fair enough. Sorry I missed that.
So, what's the difference between gay marriage/civil unions via the courts and women's sufferage via the courts, again?
You didn't miss it, I think I added it in an edit.
The difference is something I woke up to and realized while I was writing, and that is the fact that womens sufferage and civil rights were acts passed by the legislature. I don't know what I was talking about prior, so if you would, please ignore.
I will certainly drop the point, especially given your polite request. I do think it is an important issue, though, and that the lack of a clearly-defined delineation there is something which it might be worth dwelling on, privately, to see how this realization might best inform one's opinions.
Enough for that. Carry on.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Seriously, men were not prosecuted for rape of their wives, and beatings were referred to in popular culture as "home correction".
I dare you to tell my grandmother she was making it up, when less than ten years ago they started putting noticies on marriage licenses in Virginia stating that it is illegal to beat or rape your wife. I worked in government offices at the time, and I know why they felt the need to do it. The very first case where rape charges were brought against a spouse was in the sixties, I think. I'll look it up. It was considered outrageous at the time.
It's not a straw man, it's history.It's very easy, though, to idealize a distant past which you were not around to experience first hand.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: pH, and Olivet... I don't think you guys are idiots. But don't make up stuff. "Jeez, fifty years ago it was legal to rape and beat your wife. Ah, the good old days." That is the most ridiculous and tired straw man argument ever. Get in the game.
You do realise that it actually was legal to force your wife to have sex with you, yes? That is, she had no legal right to tell you no. That's rape in my book. And while beating her may not, strictly speaking, have been legal (for that, you'd need to go back more than 50 years, I think), the law sure as hell wasn't enforced if a man should happen to give his wife a black eye or two.
- What do you say to a woman with two black eyes? - Nuthin'. You already told her twice.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pixiest: In all honesty if we suddenly had a plague of locusts and you had Christians screaming about gay marriage being the cause of it, I think we would all look at them like they were crazy.
Though a slightly facetious question, what would be the appropriate plague/punishment for God to show his displeasure towards homosexuality?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Nevermind, pH. Go play with your dolls.
Pixiest, you don't know the arguments against homosexual marriage. I know this because you are projecting hate and idiocy on me and others who feel the way I do. I'm not a hateful person. But I know why you think I must be, because what other reason could there be for me to believe you should be denied what you feel is your right. Rather than demonizing your opponents, you should try to understand them. It probably won't make you change your mind, but it will help foster a more productive debate.
And please ignore what I said about abortionists and their supporters being murderers. That was a moment of anger.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Make enough of us so we can outlaw your marriages instead.
(which of course, would suck because I'm in a heterosexual marriage.)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Nevermind, pH. Go play with your dolls.
Are we eight now and throwing "stupid-head" at one another simply because you're unwilling to admit that you were mistaken about historical fact?
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Kink of Men, Olivet, it is a straw man. I should just ask you both to go look up what a straw man argument is, but I'll just tell you what you are doing. I made an argument about moral decline since a certain time, and you point out bad things from back then that I can't argue against. Therefore, my whole argument is defeated. That's the theory anyway. But what it is is a straw man argument. Here's an example:
"Robert Bork would see the return of segregated lunch counters and back-alley abortions." -Ted Kennedy
These tactics you are using work. That argument prevented Bork's nomination, even though it was patently false. If that's how you want to win, proceed at your own peril.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Though a slightly facetious question, what would be the appropriate plague/punishment for God to show his displeasure towards homosexuality?
Actual negative effects from gay marriage? Not being two of the states in the country with the lowest rates of divorce?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Resh: Ya, I've never heard the arguments against gay marriage before. What am I thinking?
I really doubt you can pull one out I've never heard. I've tried understanding the lot of you and you all boil down to "But it's icky" or some article of faith that not everyone follows (but hey! let's write some more religion into law! **** the constitution!)
And I'm angry because I'm really tired of debating this all the freaking time and I'm sick to death of my people being second class citizens.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Yes, stupid-head. I was unwilling to admit that I was wrong about something I never even said. Now go away, the grown-ups are talking.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Oh... Resh is an idiot... ya know that actually calmed me down totally...
((pH))
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Pixiest, maybe we could just cut and paste from old threads?
Reshpeckobiggle, maybe check out some of the older threads and get caught up, huh?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: What did I mean by that last thing I said, anyway? Civilization reached it's peak during World War 2,
Never said that, did you?
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, Pixiest, I'm sorry you feel that way. I would like that you could be happy. I will say that my arguments are rooted in faith, but they are not because I think homosexual sex is icky. I think gay sex is, but lesbian sex is kinda hot. No, it's about the big picture. This country was the most powerful and most good in all of history ---despite it's flaws--- but that is all changing now. That is the basis of my belief. Homosexuality is perhaps not inherently wrong, but it is a part of a landscape of change that is a symptom of our abandonmnet of god and our embrace of humanism.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Pixiest, maybe we could just cut and paste from old threads?
Reshpeckobiggle, maybe check out some of the older threads and get caught up, huh?
I know, it's been beaten to death. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that no ones mind was changed.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hmm. It was 1976 when Nebraska became the first state to abolish the marital exemption for rape.
1976. And that was the FIRST state to do it. Though I suppose a man being exempt from prosecution for raping his wife could be argued to different, in some semantic way, from it actually being legal to do so, I'd have to say there is little effective difference.
This is merely presented as proof that the Western world has not necessarily been spiralling into collapse since WWII. We didn't nuke Japan from a high ground quite as lofty as you seem to assume.
This is in response to what you said.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: What did I mean by that last thing I said, anyway? Civilization reached it's peak during World War 2,
Never said that, did you?
-pH
No, pH, I never said that Civilization reached it's peak during World War II. You got me.
I know I said earlier that I don't think you're an idiot, but I'm beginning to change my mind. At the very least, you are incredibly dense.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Resh: We're still the most powerful and the most good. But gay people getting married will not hurt our GDP, or military, or technological advances, our international charity, or anything else that can be described as Good or Powerful.
In fact, since we're smarter(*) than you lot, making us happy and more productive will make us stronger, better and more powerful.
BTW: the bible says nothing against lesbians. At the very least you should let us get married, even if you ban gay male marriage, right? Also the bible says nothing against polygamous marriage. How about letting them have a go? Are you sure you wish to lay your argument at God's feet?
Pix
(*) Mostly anecdotal but I've noticed a disproportionate number of smart people who are gay/bi or les. Now this might just be I tend to hang around smart people, but I think it's becuase the really dumb ones never figure out their gay and drag down the het average and let ours go higher.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Yes, stupid-head. I was unwilling to admit that I was wrong about something I never even said. Now go away, the grown-ups are talking.
(Emphasis mine)
If you're going to say you never said something when you did in fact say it (especially on the same page), then don't be surprised when you're called on it.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Hmm. It was 1976 when Nebraska became the first state to abolish the marital exemption for rape.
1976. And that was the FIRST state to do it. Though I suppose a man being exempt from prosecution for raping his wife could be argued to different, in some semantic way, from it actually being legal to do so, I'd have to say there is little effective difference.
This is merely presented as proof that the Western world has not necessarily been spiralling into collapse since WWII. We didn't nuke Japan from a high ground quite as lofty as you seem to assume.
This is in response to what you said.
Yes, I said that since we fought that war, nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse. That is exactly what I said. What is this, amateur hour? At least when TomDavidson uses logical fallacies in his arguments, he puts some thought into it.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand what you're saying. You're contradicting what you've said on the previous page. Either World War II was the Golden Age, or it wasn't.
-pH
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: pH, and Olivet... I don't think you guys are idiots. But don't make up stuff.
It was in response to the above statement, which implied that the legality of marital rape was made up. Not to the idea that the world was better before teh GAY! happened.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Homosexuality is not a cause, it is a symptom. Moral relativism is the cause. We have no moral compass anymore, because the forces of secularization are outlawing the source of the values from which the greatness of this country was founded.
If homosexuality is a symptom of "moral relativism," then do you consider it a choice?
quote:The Bible and our judeo-christian values were our strength, and secularism is a cancer that is destroying us.
Really? Did you know we also practiced eugenics and forced sterilization in the 20s and 30s? It's those good Judeo-Christian values at work.
quote:Your gonna win this Tom, and the rest of you "progressive" types. Your rhetoric is great. And mark my words, the spoils of war you win will be a destroyed nation, economic collapse, and the option of accepting Allah as your God and Muhommed is his prophet, or a sword through your neck.
Wow. Who knew two men being love could destroy an entire nation? Man, Canada and most of Europe's screwed then. I guess we should just follow the example of the Middle-East and kill those homosexuals before they get a chance to destroy the US, huh?
quote:You want to change that. As far as I'm concerned, you may as well be making the argument that marriage can be between a man and a fish, or a man and his sister.
Wow. Did you know a fish isn't counted as a human being, but a gay person is? Wild, right? Likewise, a fish can't enter into a marriage contract because it cannot give consent.
Oh, and a man can't marry his sister because it ruins the gene pool.
quote:I'm sorry if you are insulted, but I'm pissed off about what has happened to this country.
Are you actually sorry for saying inflammatory, hurtful remarks, or are you just trying to avoid getting warned? Nothing's worse than empty sincerity.
And by the way, I'm pissed off at what's happening to this country too. People spouting hate and fear towards change instead of trying to understand.
quote:"What's happened to this country"... Are hordes of locusts consuming children out of their cribs because gays are getting married in Massachusettes? What could you possibly be thinking?
Didn't you get the memo from the Gay Agenda and the Progressives? Gay people are supposed to start eating babies ASAP.
quote:Though a slightly facetious question, what would be the appropriate plague/punishment for God to show his displeasure towards homosexuality?
None, because he isn't displeased?
quote:Pixiest, you don't know the arguments against homosexual marriage. I know this because you are projecting hate and idiocy on me and others who feel the way I do. I'm not a hateful person. But I know why you think I must be, because what other reason could there be for me to believe you should be denied what you feel is your right. Rather than demonizing your opponents, you should try to understand them. It probably won't make you change your mind, but it will help foster a more productive debate.
So, it's NOT hateful to forbid two people from marrying on religious grounds, or to say that their marriage of love would destroy the country, or imply their marriage is on par with a man marrying his fish?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Admittedly off topic, but in support of the "I didn't make anything up" argument:
Okay, this has been fun. Clean slate next time pH and Olivet, I hope. Try to figure out where you went wrong.
Pixiest, I bet you're a nice person and I really don't think homosexuals are bad people. Unfortunately, I can't simply write out the volumes of arguments and evidence from every angle that would explain the BIG PICTURE I have that you can't see. You can't do the same, and so I'm not going to be able to fully understand your side of it either. The best either of us can do is just be skeptical of our tendency to demonize and disparage the other side.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Yes, I said that since we fought that war, nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse.
He said the first step towards treating women in marriage with respect and giving them a choice against not being forced to be raped by their husbands, a good thing, came after World War II, when bad things started happening.
What you just said called that decision a bad thing, since "everything got worse" since the war.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand what you're saying. You're contradicting what you've said on the previous page. Either World War II was the Golden Age, or it wasn't.
-pH
This is a different logical fallacy known as a "False Dichotomy."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Kink of Men, Olivet, it is a straw man. I should just ask you both to go look up what a straw man argument is, but I'll just tell you what you are doing. I made an argument about moral decline since a certain time, and you point out bad things from back then that I can't argue against. Therefore, my whole argument is defeated.
Yes, it is. If you say "There has been moral decline since time X", and we say "But here's an example of moral improvement since time X", then at least we've shown that the decline has not been total. Now, you are certainly at liberty to argue that our improvements are less important than what you think are worsenings, and that therefore there's been a net decline. I don't agree, but it's a reasonable position. But to dismiss improvement as a straw man, when what we are arguing is precisely that the world is in fact better now, is just dishonest. It's not a straw man to present evidence in favour of your position!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi:
quote:Yes, I said that since we fought that war, nothing has gotten better and everything has gotten worse.
He said the first step towards treating women in marriage with respect and giving them a choice against not being forced to be raped by their husbands, a good thing, came after World War II, when bad things started happening.
What you just said called that decision a bad thing, since "everything got worse" since the war.
He was using sarcasm say that he did NOT say that everything got worse.
"Civilization, as measured in the aggregate, was at it's highest at point X" does NOT mean that every single individual attribute of civilization was higher at point X.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand what you're saying. You're contradicting what you've said on the previous page. Either World War II was the Golden Age, or it wasn't.
-pH
This is a different logical fallacy known as a "False Dichotomy."
Well, no, that's just a "dichotomy." A "false dichotomy" is when the situation is presented as if one of two options must be true and so the other false, when in fact, there is (at least) a third option that could hold and have both of the first two options be true (or both false).
---
Edited to add: I taught an Intoduction to Logic course for three years at the University of Illinois, so I'm up on my logical fallacies. Other things, maybe not so much. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So that's it? I show you glaring errors in your argument and you come back with (pel)"I see so much more than you! Things that you are blind to! Woe! Woe! Woe!"(/pel)
And I've explained it to you. We're people. We deserve equal rights. Any compelling state interest you can come up with to show why we don't is based on scripture. And flawed scripture at that so you can't even contradict my argument.
I think I was right in the first place. You think them there gays are icky. You think lesbians are hot but if you admit it's ok for us to get hitched you'll expose the flaw in your argument against gay boys and you're not willing to do that cuz, "Dude! Gross!"
It's obvious you have put an ounce of thought into this.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: So that's it? I show you glaring errors in your argument and you come back with (pel)"I see so much more than you! Things that you are blind to! Woe! Woe! Woe!"(/pel)
That's exactly it. Don't you understand the woe?!!!
-pH
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "Civilization, as measured in the aggregate, was at it's highest at point X" does NOT mean that every single individual attribute of civilization was higher at point X.
Darn... I read sincerity, it's sarcasm. I read sarcasm, it's sincerity. I'm not having much luck at this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nice post, Hitoshi.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Anyone can argue that civilization was not at its highest at point X or vice versa, but it would be at least polite for people not to suggest that other people are making things up when obviously they were not. It is also deliberatle inflammatory (and a bit stupid) to suggest than anyone should "go play with dolls."
I don't particularly care about the gay marriage topic anymore. To me it is pretty much moot. It is troubling, though, when a poster presenting xx/xy marriage as the last bastion of our civilization is so condescending to a poster because of her gender.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Wow, Hitochi, that long post of your started off very strong. I don't know if being homosexual is a choice. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it is not. But I've said this before: IF it is wrong, then it is the acting upon the impulse that is wrong. This is the hard part to express to people who just want to hate me because I disagree: If there is a massive sickness in this country that is a result of moral relativism, and acceptance of homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality in all forms, this does not neccessarily imply that homosexuality is bad. It is a symptom. If I have a cold and so I have a runny nose, that does not mean that having a runny nose is bad. It's annoying, but it's not gonna kill me. I find homosexuals annoying, but I think it is the sickness of secularism and moral relativism that is bad.
Unfortuanely, the rest of you post is garbage. Eugenics and forced sterilization are not judeo-christian values. Neither is wife beating and rape. And the rest... forget it. You lost it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic or if you really don't understand what you're saying. You're contradicting what you've said on the previous page. Either World War II was the Golden Age, or it wasn't.
-pH
This is a different logical fallacy known as a "False Dichotomy."
Well, no, that's just a "dichotomy." A "false dichotomy" is when the situation is presented as if one of two options must be true and so the other false, when in fact, there is (at least) a third option that could hold and have both of the first two options be true (or both false).
---
Edited to add: I taught an Intoduction to Logic course for three years at the University of Illinois, so I'm up on my logical fallacies. Other things, maybe not so much.
You're right. What was wrong was the fact that he made it out as though my argument was that the WWII was a Golden Age, then he showed evidence that it was not. Still a straw man. Thanks for pointing that out.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We don't hate you Resh, we just hate the bigotry you spew.
And finding us "annoying" is not reason enough to deny us equal rights.
And thanks for equating us to the symptom of a disease. That really shows your big heart.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
In fact, what he was doing was trying to make MY argument into a false dichotomy, and then shoot it down as such.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: We don't hate you Resh, we just hate the bigotry you spew.
And finding us "annoying" is not reason enough to deny us equal rights.
And thanks for equating us to the symptom of a disease. That really shows your big heart.
This is what I meant by demonizing.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You call us a runny nose and I'm demonizing you?
You call us "annoying" and I'm demonizing you?
You blame us for the fall of America and I'm demonizing you?
dee-dee-dee.
BTW, when did pH grow a doodle?
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Wow, Hitochi, that long post of your started off very strong. I don't know if being homosexual is a choice. There seems to be a lot of evidence that it is not. But I've said this before: IF it is wrong, then it is the acting upon the impulse that is wrong. This is the hard part to express to people who just want to hate me because I disagree: If there is a massive sickness in this country that is a result of moral relativism, and acceptance of homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality in all forms, this does not neccessarily imply that homosexuality is bad. It is a symptom. If I have a cold and so I have a runny nose, that does not mean that having a runny nose is bad. It's annoying, but it's not gonna kill me. I find homosexuals annoying, but I think it is the sickness of secularism and moral relativism that is bad.
Unfortuanely, the rest of you post is garbage. Eugenics and forced sterilization are not judeo-christian values. Neither is wife beating and rape. And the rest... forget it. You lost it.
It's Hitoshi, actually. I have yet to screw up your name, I'd ask you do the same for me.
Yes, if homosexuality is wrong, then acting upon it would be wrong. However, because not all religions or people agree, legislating that belief into practice is unfair to any who disagree. And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy. In fact, I find it funny you want us to fight against theocratic regimes but wish this country to become one as well.
I also find it amusing that, in the same post, you denounce people who "hate you" for disagreeing but then act disdainful towards anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh, and actually, though sterilization isn't a Christian value per se, religion has been used to justify it and so many other things that should never have existed i the first place.
Oh, and your points are garbage. I figure, if you can say it, so can I. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Had I said, "We don't hate you homosexuals, we just hate the filth and evil influence you spew.
Just because you think us Christians are brainwashed is not reason for you to corrupt our children."
Would that be okay?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Resh: I've demonstrated why I think what you spew is bigottry. You've said something to the effect of "It's just wrong, ok! Gah!"
You have not addressed my points. You've called us names. Then had the GALL to acuse me of demonizing you.
You're a teenager or in your very early 20s?
And actually, I get "hate the sin, love the sinner" from christians all the time.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You call us a runny nose and I'm demonizing you?
You call us "annoying" and I'm demonizing you?
You blame us for the fall of America and I'm demonizing you?
dee-dee-dee.
BTW, when did pH grow a doodle?
Quoted for truth. Don't you love how spreaders of Christ's love do so with amendments and hate? Not that you do it, Reshpeckobiggle, but I'm sure you'd love to hear the story of how a priest's gay son killed himself by throwing himself an overpass, and the priest said he was glad because his son was better off dead than being gay and against God. Can't you feel the love?
I also love how we're demonizing him by pointing out the snide comments he makes. Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Had I said, "We don't hate you homosexuals, we just hate the filth and evil influence you spew.
Just because you think us Christians are brainwashed is not reason for you to corrupt our children."
Would that be okay?
No, but I've heard that and much worse from "Focus on the Family," which believes gays will destroy America and family values as we know it. Does that count?
Or, here's a proposition for you: if the tables were reversed, and we were pondering passing an amendment that banned marriages between Christians, would that be ok?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Not the same. Christians could deny christ and still get hitched. It's not like we can have one of us put on a fake moustache, claim to be named "Javier" (sorry, that's my favorite guy name) and get married.
We don't have a work around.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:It's Hitoshi, actually. I have yet to screw up your name, I'd ask you do the same for me.
Yes, if homosexuality is wrong, then acting upon it would be wrong. However, because not all religions or people agree, legislating that belief into practice is unfair to any who disagree. And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy. In fact, I find it funny you want us to fight against theocratic regimes but wish this country to become one as well.
I also find it amusing that, in the same post, you denounce people who "hate you" for disagreeing but then act disdainful towards anyone who disagrees with you.
Oh, and actually, though sterilization isn't a Christian value per se, religion has been used to justify it and so many other things that should never have existed i the first place.
Oh, and your points are garbage. I figure, if you can say it, so can I.
Sorry about messing up your name. I didn't mean to, and I don't think I would make a big deal about it if you did it.
No now THIS is a false dichotomy, and I'm sure ClaudiaTherese will agree: "And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy."
And as for your points being garbage, that was a little harsh. I apologize. I should just say that I don't think they are good enough to spend much time addressing. That's how I feel, and everyone else is free to ignore things I say if they think what I say is stupid.
Anyway, the eugenics thing, and the whole "bad things have been done in the name of religion argument"... Wwll, the most prominent occurrence of forced sterilization and the practice of eugenics was by the Nazis, and they used Darwinism to justify it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Had I said, "We don't hate you homosexuals, we just hate the filth and evil influence you spew.
Just because you think us Christians are brainwashed is not reason for you to corrupt our children."
Would that be okay?
No, but I've heard that and much worse from "Focus on the Family," which believes gays will destroy America and family values as we know it. Does that count?
Or, here's a proposition for you: if the tables were reversed, and we were pondering passing an amendment that banned marriages between Christians, would that be ok?
Not to mention that Christianity is DEFINITELY a choice. Though a predisposition to follow some of its tenets might be in ones nature.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Godwin!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: ...everyone else is free to ignore things I say if they think what I say is stupid.
I am delighted by this suggestion and endorse it whole heartedly.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: No now THIS is a false dichotomy, and I'm sure ClaudiaTherese will agree: "And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy."
(I'd not quibble over it. *smile)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
But KMB.. that would end the discussion right now and there's still an hour of work left....
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
OK, this is REALLY my last post, and then I got to go. Read my posts, read your own, and then see who is the one with the most vitriol. Do, and be honest with yourselves.
Seeyas!
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Not the same. Christians could deny christ and still get hitched. It's not like we can have one of us put on a fake moustache, claim to be named "Javier" (sorry, that's my favorite guy name) and get married.
We don't have a work around.
You're right. Well, crap. I can't think of a good example then...
quote:No now THIS is a false dichotomy, and I'm sure ClaudiaTherese will agree: "And just because you find secular governments are ruining society doesn't mean you can make our government a theocracy."
How is this a false dichotomy? You explicitly said on page 10, "We have no moral compass anymore, because the forces of secularization are outlawing the source of the values from which the greatness of this country was founded. The Bible and our judeo-christian values were our strength, and secularism is a cancer that is destroying us." If you're not implying our government would be better off not being secular and should instead be based on the Bible, then what are you saying?
quote:Anyway, the eugenics thing, and the whole "bad things have been done in the name of religion argument"... Wwll, the most prominent occurrence of forced sterilization and the practice of eugenics was by the Nazis, and they used Darwinism to justify it.
Yes, the most prominent example of forced sterilization was Nazi Germany. One of the largest however was our own. From Wikipedia:
quote:Their findings were used by the eugenics movement as proof for its cause. State laws were written in the late 1800s and early 1900s to prohibit marriage and force sterilization of the mentally ill in order to prevent the "passing on" of mental illness to the next generation.
Ooops.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Anyway, the eugenics thing, and the whole "bad things have been done in the name of religion argument"... Wwll, the most prominent occurrence of forced sterilization and the practice of eugenics was by the Nazis, and they used Darwinism to justify it.
The greatest eugenics movement occured in America, and we used Christianity to justify it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Godwin!
Quoted for truth++
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: OK, this is REALLY my last post, and then I got to go. Read my posts, read your own, and then see who is the one with the most vitriol. Do, and be honest with yourselves.
You. Totally you. I don't think you deserve anything less than equal rights. Every time you say that we do, you're expressing bigotry.
Sorry, You can blame it on god if you like, but it doesn't hold up biblically.
And when you say we're responsible for the downfall of America you really cross the line.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: OK, this is REALLY my last post, and then I got to go. Read my posts, read your own, and then see who is the one with the most vitriol.
I'd tell you to do the same, but I doubt the results would be good. Tell me (when you get back, of course), would you accept an impartial arbitrator? Say, our esteemed moderator, Papa Janitor, who hasn't participated in this thread at all and thus has no axe to grind. If someone neutral were asked to do the same judgement, and found that you were the one spewing vitriol, would you change your posting style, or at least cease accusing people of demonising you?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Only if you agree to spell "demonizing" with a z.
P.S. I'm not back.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Well, there is a huge difference between what's wrong and what's legal, sometimes. It's usually a good thing that we do not equate the two. The last time people were prosecuted for interacial marriage was in 1967. Here are some quotes from the trial judge, taken from a link I'll supply at the end of this post:
"Almighty God created the races of White, Black, Yellow, Malay, and Red, and He placed them on separate continents." "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." *
Stuff like that is a big reason why creating or upholding laws based only on moral belief systems makes me nervous. I believe it was a federal court that decided such marriages should not be prosecuted, effectively killing such laws in states that still had them on the books.
Me, I figure it's a dead heat whether gay marriage will be the next thing to separate us from the rest of the first world. I hear the metric system is getting lonely.
quote:Anyway, the eugenics thing, and the whole "bad things have been done in the name of religion argument"... Wwll, the most prominent occurrence of forced sterilization and the practice of eugenics was by the Nazis, and they used Darwinism to justify it.
Oh, and given your love of pointing out fallacies, I'm sure you'll appreciate how Reductio ad Hitlerum applies. Just substitute "lack of religion" of X Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Only if you agree to spell "demonizing" with a z.
P.S. I'm not back.
Shall I take it from your flippancy, then, that you are afraid of what such an arbitration would show?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You can take from it whatever you want.
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Well, there is a huge difference between what's wrong and what's legal, sometimes. It's usually a good thing that we do not equate the two. The last time people were prosecuted for interacial marriage was in 1967. Here are some quotes from the trial judge, taken from a link I'll supply at the end of this post:
"Almighty God created the races of White, Black, Yellow, Malay, and Red, and He placed them on separate continents." "And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages." "The fact that He separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." *
Stuff like that is a big reason why creating or upholding laws based only on moral belief systems makes me nervous. I believe it was a federal court that decided such marriages should not be prosecuted, effectively killing such laws in states that still had them on the books.
Me, I figure it's a dead heat whether gay marriage will be the next thing to separate us from the rest of the first world. I hear the metric system is getting lonely.
I think this is an excellent post, Olivet. I knew you had it in you and I'm sorry I grouped you in with pH.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Olivet: oops! I'm of mixed race! Guess I'm just a living sin!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
wow.. I read the first part of that article.. it blows my mind that 42% of americans were against interracial marriage in 1998.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: wow.. I read the first part of that article.. it blows my mind that 42% of americans were against interracial marriage in 1998.
I think it was 1991 (I'll reread the article), but I'd believe it, sadly.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Pixiest- I did not mean to imply that I believe mixed marriage is wrong. I do not honestly believe it was ever wrong, though it was certainly illegal in some places. Places where people believed it was immoral, and thus made it illegal.
Moral absolutes have a tendency not to remain quite as abosolute as might hope, which is why I hesitate to legally enforce a particular code of morals that is based completely on subjective religious belief.
I hope you knew what I meant and were joking, but I really couldn't tell.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Olivet: You know I'd never think *anything* like that of you!
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Moral absolutes have a tendency not to remain quite as abosolute as might hope, which is why I hesitate to legally enforce a particular code of morals that is based completely on subjective religious belief.
Just wondering, what would you consider to be sufficient basis for morality upon which laws might be enforced? Certainly not "objective" religious belief, I wouldn't think.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
This is one of those topics that seems to get rather heated no matter how it is approached, and those topics I try to give a bit more free rein. But just a bit. There have been a few steps over the line, and not all by the same person. Please refrain from the personal attacks and profanity. And while generalizations aren't against the TOS, they're rarely helpful to the discussion. Just sayin'.
Did nobody else ever think of Who Wants to Be a Superhero when seeing this thread? I did from the first. I can still picture the ad.
--PJ
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Alright...I'll jump in here, for just a bit. Now, I realize I haven't read the entire thread, but I've read about the first and last thirds, and I think I feel comfortable with voicing my (rather unpopular) view here. Just my two cents, on the general topic of gay marriage, not directed at anyone.
Listen, I'm gay, for those of you who don't know. I will also preface this by saying I'm a poster child for the 'it isn't a choice' thing, because I'd give my right arm to be normal again. Not my left one, because I'm left handed, but the right one, sure. But I'm coming to grips with who and what I am, however much that may be a seperate discussion from this one.
However, I'll say this: You want to keep marriage between man and a woman, you want to protect and 'defend' it, you want to 'save' society by keeping that all to yourselves? Fine. Keep it. I don't want it, if you want it that bad. Yes, I know what that'll mean for me, if I ever, god be willing, enter into a long-term, committed relationship with some guy. It means I couldn't necessarily visit him in the hospital if he got sick. It means I can't make medical and legal decisions for him if he's unable to do so for himself, and it means he can't do that for me. It means different taxes, complications when buying property, etc, etc, so on so forth.
You know what? I don't care. Keep your legalities. Keep your marriages and your sanctity and your Las Vegas marriage parlors. Keep your divorces and your pre-nups. So, it'll be harder for me. Bring it on. But if you want that concept so badly, if it's so important to you, keep it. I don't want it. The fight ain't worth it to me. I'm a good little gay man, I keep within the bounds, I act straight, I don't plaster rainbow stickers on my car or nothing. Far be it from me to rock the boat.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Human: Once you get passed the bitterness part, you'll want to be equal.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
I already wanna be equal, Pix. It really is almost a thing of letting go, though. They want it so badly. They want it to be theirs, sacred, theirs to use and mess up. Screw it. I'm not gonna fight them on it. I don't have the right to force them, just like they don't have the right to force me from who I am.
...and please don't ever tell me what I really am thinking again, or what I'll think 'when I get better'. You're my friend, but I'm not in the mood.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Human: I understand where you're coming from. I sympathize with you more than you know. I wish you all the best in accepting yourself, and wish you can one day be happy being you. If you wanna talk sometime, email me through the board. You seem like a good guy.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Wow, that wasn't at all condescending.
I don't get the impression that Human isn't "accepting himself". From what I can tell, he's just pissed, he thinks this is a stupid fight, and he's not buying into anybody's agenda. If anything, he's way MORE self-accepting than he would be if he molded himself into the image of what a "good gay man" is supposed to say and advocate.
Maybe I'm misreading, but if I'm not, then SHEESH.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
...Geoff, I wish I couldn't say that I'm surprised, but I am. You nailed it.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I'm not sure what that meant, exactly, but I'll take it as a good thing
I've been all over the map on this issue, internally, and I still haven't quite landed yet, so I imagine practically everything I say could potentially be surprising Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
No offense, but I didn't think that the person who understood my comment best would be the straight LDS son of Orson Scott Card. However, it is a pleasant surprise, and one I'm rather pleased to be able to express. (And god, I hope that didn't sound pretentious.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Geoff tends to be pretty good at seeing the other side, even when he disagrees.
He has to. It's in his job description. Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Human, you know what? Sometimes I just want to break out the parentheses and (((Human))) you.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Human has a point. I wish we could accept each other and love each other as we are, without the need to label people and yell at each other about our differences. Human just wants to live his life and be happy. I'm all for that.
I can't speak for everyone, Human, but I wish you well.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Olivet: You know I'd never think *anything* like that of you!
Obviously I didn't know it, or I wouldn't have worried. dee-dee-dee on me.
quote: Just wondering, what would you consider to be sufficient basis for morality upon which laws might be enforced? Certainly not "objective" religious belief, I wouldn't think.
The trouble with basing laws on religious belief *only* is that you have to pick a religion. I mean, the Taliban was the result of (I believe) the efforts of people inspired by religious feeling and the certanty of their own righteousness.
*shrug* I think te body politic should make and enforce laws to protect itself and its citizens from material harm. Violent crime, abusive business practices and so forth. Ideally, it would stay mostly out of the practice of religion and the minutiae of people's lives (such as sexual practices, child rearing, the height of one's lawn)except when it is necessary to protect its citizens (the typical "your rights end where mine begin" type of thing).
Now, I realize that the legal system has a long history of enforcing social norms, but those norms change. In retrospect, the illegality of mixed marriages is, for example, kind of embarrassing.
I recently watched Birth of a Nation, a grand spectacle of filmmaking and racism wrapped up in a nifty 3 hour bundle. The image of the sweet young white girl throwing herself off a cliff to escape the embraces of a black man (actually a white actor in dark make-up, since people of color were not allowed to have speaking roles in 'white' movies)... just blew my mind. The racism was just... painful to watch.
The standards are different now. Though I would not go so far as to say that my country is color blind, at least no one is getting arrested for using the wrong water fountain, you know?
My point is that social norms (often defended and supported by religious or other belief) change. Sometimes the social norms change well ahead of the laws, but legal and social norms in flux bring about debates debates like these. I think that is a good thing.
People who feel a genuine need to fight what they see as teh decay of society should do so. People who feel the need to fight for rights they are denied should do so as well.
But to me, the big picture and the final outcome is obvious-- only the timeline is in question.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Human: I'm not willing to "just let them have it" If you don't want to fight for equal rights, that's fine. It's a long, upsetting fight.
But don't give up for the rest of us.
And you *are* still a kid and you *are* still in that awful place and when you *do* get a taste of what it's like to be in a reasonable place, surrounded by people who won't hate you for what you are and don't use "gay" as a swear word, you will want more. You will want equality.
And if you still don't after all that, If you're still content to sit at the back of the bus, then please, don't give ammunition to those who would do us harm.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My reason for supporting SSM is purely selfish. When some are denied equal rights, it is bad for all of us. Segregation was a blot on society for all of society. So is this.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hey Pix, all Human wants to do is the Christian thing. You know, turn the other cheek, treat his enemies as he would want to be treated.
There seems to be more of that in the New Testament than attacks on his sexuality.
Hey, if he can be more Christ-like than the Christian Right Extremists who believe being Christ-like means fighting devils, imagined or real, then Human: Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I admit, I've never heard anybody articulate human's point of view before, it's certainly given me pause and something to think about.
Thanks for breaking down a wall on this discussion and letting me see its alittle bit bigger then I supposed.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Hey, now, don't go reading too much into it. While it's partly a "I don't wanna fight over legalities and a concept" it's also a bit of a "screw you, you can have it". About fifty-fifty, really. I also really don't believe I have the right to force around the entire legal system of this country to get that rather narrow yet important set of rights.
Pix: Okay, I'm starting to agree with Geoff here. Where am I saying I don't want equality? I wanna be treated like everyone else, that's sorta the point. But I also really...it's hard to explain, and I just woke up, which makes it harder. Also, how dare you tell me what I'm gonna want when I'm 'more enlightened'? True or not, my mind is not yours, and what you thought when you go in that position isn't necessarily what I'm gonna think. And much as my position might seem to fly in the face with the traditional 'gay agenda', don't be so foolish to think I'm gonna start stabbing myself and those like me in the back. Not fighting with tooth and nail isn't the same as helping the other side, not one bit.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: I do that by fighting for christian rights too. To pray in school, for instance. Or to display the 10 commandments at their job even if they're a judge.
But saying "You can have it I don't want it" doesn't read like turning the other cheek. It reads like sour grapes.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Human: You're saying you don't want equality when you say "You can keep marriage."
There's a right wing radio talk show host out here... You guys all know I'm fiscally conservative, so it will come as no shock to hear I used to listen to this guy.
But he got to the point where he couldn't clear his throat without ripping on gays. And one of the things he said was "I know TONS of gay guys and they all say 'No man, I don't ever want to get married'" and he would bring this up daily.
So he has an anecdotal set of evidence coming from a small sample of gay *men* who say they don't want to get married and he uses that to explain that MOST gay people don't really want marriage.
And that's what I mean about giving ammunition to the enemy.
(and that's why I can't listen to this guy without *screaming* anymore)
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Then the guy is stupid. Anyone who has half a brain could know that he's an idiot. He's taking a small piece of data and extrapolating it over an entire demographic, which is known to cause glaring errors. Also, if most gay people didn't wanna get married, then why is there an issue? I'm sorry, the 'liberal gay cabal' argument doesn't hold. Anyone who listens to an idiot like that is already convinced, so who cares what he says? Why are you listening to him in the first place?
Also, they're not the enemy. I'm sorry, I have a hard time believing that the entire straight community, y'know, most of the world, is my enemy. I have to live with these people, I have to work with them, be friends with them. And it makes it a lot harder when they're 'the enemy'. So, I don't. I refuse.
((Yeah. So much for gay solidarity, folks!))
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The entire straight community is not our enemy. Only the ones fighting against equal rights.
There are a lot of really cool and wonderful straight people out there and some of them have posted on this thread.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Our. You keep using our like I'm on the same page as you, like we're some kind of united front, a brotherhood or whatever. I'm not. I'm a reluctant member of a social demographic. And I don't see the point in pissing a lot of people off, fighting over this. Not when it's been made plain to me by a large majority of the American public that it will be a cold day in hell when they extend that priviledge to people like me!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
We've got it in 1 state, got seperate but equal in 3 others. (New Jersey just yesterday)
We're getting there. Satan will be ice skating before you know it.
And even if you've given up, you'll still benefit when we win.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: Wow, that wasn't at all condescending.
I don't get the impression that Human isn't "accepting himself". From what I can tell, he's just pissed, he thinks this is a stupid fight, and he's not buying into anybody's agenda. If anything, he's way MORE self-accepting than he would be if he molded himself into the image of what a "good gay man" is supposed to say and advocate.
Maybe I'm misreading, but if I'm not, then SHEESH.
I never meant for that to come across that way at all. I read things like this: "But I'm coming to grips with who and what I am..." "I will also preface this by saying I'm a poster child for the 'it isn't a choice' thing, because I'd give my right arm to be normal again." and thought that's what he was saying, that he'd had a hard time accepting himself.
...I struggled through it for three years with no one to help me, and I still struggle now. I know how hard it can be to go through this, so when I read this... I thought I might be able to help someone... even a stranger's comforting voice can help when you feel like you don't matter.
I... I just thought I could help...
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Oh. Yeah. Right, four states out of fifty, forgive me if I'm not on my feet cheering for the new revolution! Not to mention that in several of those states, the whole idea is still under legislative attack, and y'know, there's that whole constitutional amendment hanging over our collective heads. And every state we 'win' makes that amendment a little more likely! Not to mention that your 'victories' come once every few years, at this rate, yes, the US will have SSM. In 2100.
Edit for Hitoshi: I'm not entirely sure Geoff was aiming at you, Hitoshi. If he was aiming that at you, I don't agree with him. I think you were trying to comment on something somewhat different than the main topic of the thread. Believe me, I know how nice that stranger's voice can sound.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hitoshi: I don't know if I could have made it if someone hadn't helped me. Thank God for the internet. I think I would have eventually succeeded in killing myself.
(If somehow you find this, thank you Dawn.)
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Also, Hitoshi...if you ever wanna talk, I'll extend the same offer you extended to me--email me through the board, or you can find me on AIM and Yahoo IM under the SN "Dracofire87".
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Not when it's been made plain to me by a large majority of the American public that it will be a cold day in hell when they extend that priviledge to people like me!
"We" will win, of that I have no doubt. I use "We" to refer to all of us who are fighting for gay marriage, straight or gay. If you aren't in that category, Human, then I suppose it doesn't refer to you. To me that's sad, but it certainly is your choice.
The fight may look desperate, but look at the accomplishments the movement has made in just the last 20 years. Those ammendments are only necessary because we've come this far! They are a last ditch measure by the religious in this country because they are trying to delay the inevitable.
This generation (of 20 somethings) is about a million percent more tolerant than the generation before it of gay marriage. The next generation will turn the tide for sure.
It's going to happen, and it will happen in the next thirty years.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
It's not that I don't think it would be a good idea. It's not that I wouldn't avail myself of the priviledge if it were open to me. I just don't see the use in sticking out my already vulnerable neck for something I can't see happening in my lifetime.
And no offense, X, but if you think this generation is more tolerant, you haven't met the guys I hang out with on a regular basis. They'll choke on their own masculinity and pride before they vote for something like SSM.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Human, sweetie... they're rednecks.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
No, they're not. Most of them don't live here by choice. Most of them come from the St. Louis area. They're all educated, all very smart, and none cut from the redneck cloth of this area. Believe me, I can tell if someone is, it's in everything they do. They just don't believe gay guys can be...well, real men. They don't believe it's anything but icky, choice or no choice. I can't just excuse it away by saying their 'just rednecks', because they're not. One of them is getting his doctorate, for god's sake.
Edit: Okay, they do choose to live here, but it's only because of the college, not because they like the town.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Human: Ah, ok. His was following mine and it seemed like he was addressing some of what I'd said, so I thought he was directing that at me. If he was then I hope he knows that wasn't my intention. If not, then I feel a bit silly. ^^; EDIT: Thanks for the offer. It might be a while before I can take you up on that offer of IMing since I don't have ready access to IM services, but I can email. So yeah, and thanks.
Pix: Yeah. I was still bitter even once I accepted I was gay, but I met a couple people online at about that time that have helped me a lot since then. I owe a lot to them. Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Human, sweetie... they're rednecks.
Oh well in that case they must be idiots. Rednecks, sheesh, why don't we start making laws keeping them from their rights?
[Edit: Sorry to be so snarky. That kind of comment bothers me a little bit. Next time I'll refrain from comment.]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: It's going to happen, and it will happen in the next thirty years.
I think this is correct. The only support I have for that belief is the speed of social change over the last thirty years, and the fact that some of niece's best friends are gay or bisexual, pretty openly. She lives in a small, rural area, one where people who are different are pretty likely to get the crap beaten out of them. Yet her best buddy in 7th grade is gay (poor thing is 15-- years of social struggle and beatings left him behind his agemates, but he's decided to accept himself-- he doesn't seem out of plaace because he's kind of small for his age).
I think, for the majority of her generation, equal rights for gays will be a no-brainer. But I could be wrong.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I can't speak for them, but I would also feel that being gay is "icky" (although I would prefer, I dunno, "unfortunate"), choice or no choice. But icky is a big jump to voting against SSM.
Personally, I believe* that it does have a strong genetic component and would instinctively compare it with say dwarfism or a peanut allergy. You know, something you wouldn't want your children to have, but not something you need to legally discriminate against.
The long wind is, I might not particularly like gay culture, but I'm not going to go out of my way to vote against SSM and I think there are a fair number of people in the same boat.
I guess its a corollary to the saying "I may not like what you're saying...but I'll defend you to the death to allow you to say it" except "I may not like you ... but I'll defend your rights."
* No real proof though
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Human: No, I mean they're rednecks so of course they believe that way. There are plenty of smart rednecks. They're just wrong. Heck, my PARENTS are rednecks and they're brilliant!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I do not get the "ick factor" thing anymore. It strains my imagination, and I am a lifelong monogamist heterosexual.
There is absolutely nothing gay people do that heterosexual couples don't do, regularly and with abandon (though some of it may not be to my particular taste). I am not particularly comfortable discussing the sex lives of others, myself, so maybe it is an extension of that. You see two people of teh same sex kiss and you think you know what they do (though you could be wrong). You may even do the same with hetero couples (unconsciously or otherwise) or maybe it never occurs to people because they assume hetero people are 'normal' sexually (at least in the absence of multiple piercings or collars). The only thing I'm sure of is that most people who think they know what two people do in private are dead wrong.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Sorry if I came across as critical of your militancy Pix. I back you 100% in your fight for the right to marry.
I think we all agree that Human has a right to his opinion. The idea of "You are With Us or Against Us" is never appropriate.
In many ways you have been in his place, and have moved on. Yet you have moved on in ways that are pure Pixiest. Human will move on, or has moved on. To tell him he will move on in the same way you have is a bit presumptious, and sounds preachy to those without your experience.
p.s. I wrote this an hour and a half ago and didn't press Post until just now. Sorry if it's out dated.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:And no offense, X, but if you think this generation is more tolerant, you haven't met the guys I hang out with on a regular basis. They'll choke on their own masculinity and pride before they vote for something like SSM.
I'm sorry, Human, but why then do you hang out with them?
I admit that the ultra-macho "must drink beer, must watch sports, must NEVER admit to being attracted to a man, or else you aren't a man yourself" type is still very much in existance, but there are MANY MANY people who are not this way. I tend not to hang around with that type myself, so I wonder why you would choose to do so.
The poll numbers are very much against gay marriage, but I would bet dollars to donuts that if you polled young people aged 15-28 the same question, the trend would be reversed. I'd love to see some stats on this, but don't even know where to look.
When the current crop of children reaches voting age, I think you'll see a serious change in public opinion. Like Olivet said, for kids growing up these days, with openly gay individuals all over the media, and in their everyday lives (as teachers, schoolmates, coaches, friends) they can't help but want what's best for them.
There are now many openly gay students in our public schools, something completely unheard of 15 years ago.
You'd get run out of town on a rail for being an openly gay teacher in the last generation, now you'd likely be embraced, at least in some places in the country.
Celebrities who hid their homosexuality for years, have now come out, usually to the betterment of their careers.
Heck, how many openly gay/bisexual hatrackers are there now? For years and years it was just KarlEd. Now you guys could have your own con .
In addition to being exposed to homosexuality in their lives, those of us straight homosexual rights advocates who have children will teach those children that being gay is not a bad thing.
Anti-homosexual legislation is based on fear. Pure and simple. The current generation has less fear of homosexuality than our parents did, and our children will have very little fear at all.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Damn, Xavi you're like a ray of sunshine on a cloudy day!
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:I'm sorry, Human, but why then do you hang out with them?
From what I can tell, the only things wrong with these guys are:
1. They have a political disagreement with Human, over an issue that Human has decided to throw to the dogs in frustration. 2. As is common among straight men, they find the thought of homosexual intercourse abhorrent. This doesn't translate directly into prejudice. It's a very common visceral reaction that people are expected to transcend. Simply having the reaction doesn't mean these guys are bad people, or bad friends. If they were cruel to Human about it, then THAT would make them bad friends.
In general, I'm not a fan of the practice of demonizing your political opponents — such as deciding that you could never be friends with one, or deciding that they could only possibly have a base motivation like "fear".
The religious folk, red-staters, conservatives, and other people who tend to oppose gay marriage are as varied as humans can be. Painting them all with the same brush would be like telling a gay man that because he's gay, his politics obviously should line up with every other gay man, and if they don't then he's not being true .. to ... himself ... hey, wait a minute
Can't we all just be individuals? I've got stacks of friends on both sides of this issue. I'd really like not to think that I've got to pick one stack and reject the other.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Geoff, my cube-mate is a "red-state conservative", as is 95% of my company. I live in Nebraska, for crying out loud .
I like him, and hang out with him, and he's very much against gay marriage. I've had conservative friends in New York, one which I think would make a great hatracker, judging by the friendly (but intense) political debates we've had.
However, I wouldn't ever describe my conservative friends the way Human did his friends. Human can hang out with whoever he wants to, of course, but I'd ask the same question of a black man dating a white woman in the 50's who was friends which a bunch of guys zealously opposed to letting interracial marriage be legal.
At some level, sure, you can seperate the person from the position. But when that person is opposed to a fundamental right of yours, which impacts your life in a very real and meaningful way, I have to wonder if you really should.
Not that its any of my business, of course.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Puppy, among other things, they set up an elaborate (weeks in the making) scenario in an RPG with Human in which his character was (I may get the details wrong) dressed up like a woman, knocked unconscious, and thrown to a group of rapacious thugs to be a plaything. Something like that. And now he is the butt (pardon the expression) of this joke whenever he gets back together with him. They seem to have hit on this as a weak spot and delight in shaming him -- whether they sense his true orientation or not is a matter of debate amongst those privvy to the unfolding of all this over at Mike's forum.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: In general, I'm not a fan of the practice of demonizing your political opponents — such as deciding that you could never be friends with one, or deciding that they could only possibly have a base motivation like "fear".
Thanks, I was just about to say this.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
CT, I didn't know that bit. If they're aware, on any level, of Human's orientation, and are singling him out because of it, that sounds really crappy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From all accounts, these are not guys who have after careful consideration have decided that they cannot support SSM; these are guys who are looking for looking for a target to bully and find homosexuality something they can all deride.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: CT, I didn't know that bit. If they're aware, on any level, of Human's orientation, and are singling him out because of it, that sounds really crappy.
Yeah, I was pretty sure you were working without that piece of the puzzle. The complication of this issue unfolding across two fora makes for a less-than-clear story for most watching.
From multiple scenes like the ones I described, I have determined that these guys are, well, jerks. To put it politely.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Guess I'll jump back in real quick. Olivet, I don't know if your answer to my question was just over my head (quite likely) or if you just got sidetracked and didn't un-sidetrack yourself, but I didn't feel like you answered the question. And then I read the rest of the posts and completely forgot what the question was. I just remember not being satisfied. So if you didn't adequately answer the question (whatever it was)and would like to give it another go, I'm all ears. If I am just being dense, could you speak to me like I'm a child? I won't get mad, I promise.
As for the whole deal about gay and straight friends, I have a few gay friends, and I have many more straight friends who are very pro-gay marriage. I try my best to explain that I am a social conservative on this issue in spite of the empathy I feel for homosexuals. I would like to support them, because it hurts my conscience at the interpersonal level. But I try to explain, as I did earlier here, that it's a sort of big picture thing. I know this analogy came across as very offensive to some, and for that reason I'm questioning the usefulness of it, but I think the moral equalization of homosexuality to heterosexuality is the symptom of a disease in this country. I MUST EMPHASIZE that I don't mean to imply that homsexuals are evil or sick or bad or anything. I am not judging the so-called symptoms. There are plenty of effects, some positive, some neutral, some negative, that are resultant of the disease. If I could take the good and leave the bad, I would. But I'm not even trying to make a determination as to which are which, because my determinations have to be based upon Christian values because that is all I have, and they are not welcome in a debate about homosexuality, or abortion, or pornography, or art, or economics, or anything where anyone who is not a Christian has a stake.
And that is the irony. The disease of this country is the abandonment of the Christian values that this country was founded on and what made it great and powerful. This abandonment will be it's downfall, I am certain of this. Now, if that is not a bad thing, then the disease is not bad either. Was the bullet that went into Hitler's brain bad? Is the kidney disease or whatever eventually kills Osama bin Laden bad?
I'm just saying that there is a price we are going to pay because of the secularization of America. Secularization is not a replacement for Christianity. It is a void, and it will be filled by something else. I guarantee it will be Islam, mark my words.
Again, I don't mean to offend, and I know I do sometimes (or a lot of times, judging from the reactions). This has been pointed out to me enough times that I'm trying to do something about it. So please, take my words at face value.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:
quote: reshpeckobiggle: Just wondering, what would you consider to be sufficient basis for morality upon which laws might be enforced? Certainly not "objective" religious belief, I wouldn't think.
The trouble with basing laws on religious belief *only* is that you have to pick a religion. I mean, the Taliban was the result of (I believe) the efforts of people inspired by religious feeling and the certanty of their own righteousness.
*shrug* I think te body politic should make and enforce laws to protect itself and its citizens from material harm. Violent crime, abusive business practices and so forth. Ideally, it would stay mostly out of the practice of religion and the minutiae of people's lives (such as sexual practices, child rearing, the height of one's lawn)except when it is necessary to protect its citizens (the typical "your rights end where mine begin" type of thing).
Went back. I WAS being dense. So, gonna try and tackle this one now. Let's say we must base our laws on something. Let's try morality. Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion. Because the only alternative to religious morality is either nihilistic morality or the morality of naturalism from which we get Darwinism and evolution. So the only morality there is is survival of the fittest, which is not really morality.
You say instead we should have "laws to protect itself and its citizens from material harm. Violent crime, abusive business practices and so forth." Sounds good, I guess. But I hold that complete secularism is merely a void. It will be filled. Without a true moral basis, which is neccessarily religious in nature, we have no defense. And so the government has no capability to protect itself. I know this will be disputed, but I'll leave that for later.
*shrug* I think te body politic should make and enforce laws to protect itself and its citizens from material harm. Violent crime, abusive business practices and so forth. Ideally, it would stay mostly out of the practice of religion and the minutiae of people's lives (such as sexual practices, child rearing, the height of one's lawn)except when it is necessary to protect its citizens (the typical "your rights end where mine begin" type of thing).
[edit: sorry; two posts in a row and long.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion. Because the only alternative to religious morality is either nihilistic morality or the morality of naturalism from which we get Darwinism and evolution. So the only morality there is is survival of the fittest, which is not really morality.
quote: Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
I don't think that's remotely established. I think that basic morality is a natural product of the clearly beneficial phenomenon of mutual cooperation upon which all societies are built. The value of many moral stances, such as prohibitions against murder, lying, and theft is self evident and requires absolutely no appeal to a God or "religion" of any kind*.
*here, of course, I'm assuming you're using the word "religion" as something apart from "philosophy" in the generic sense.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote: Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
I don't think that's remotely established. I think that basic morality is a natural product of the clearly beneficial phenomenon of mutual cooperation upon which all societies are built. The value of many moral stances, such as prohibitions against murder, lying, and theft is self evident and requires absolutely no appeal to a God or "religion" of any kind*.
*here, of course, I'm assuming you're using the word "religion" as something apart from "philosophy" in the generic sense.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Resh's troll is showing
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(I'll note as an aside that anyone who wants to get into a pissing match about whose moral system is more rigorous or demands more of its practitioners doesn't want to do it with Kant. IMHO.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This is true, but since at least some of what Kant demands is, IMHO, evil, rigor and amount demanded of practitioners together are not a meaningful measure of the worth of a moral system. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
Ding! Wrong! It's not established at all, in fact it's completely wrong. And since this is an axiom of your post, the whole argument just falls apart.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: This is true, but since at least some of what Kant demands is, IMHO, evil, rigor and amount demanded of practitioners together are not a meaningful measure of the worth of a moral system.
Well, of course.
--
Edited to add: That is, I'd say that they are far far far from the only meaningful measure of a moral system, but I do think they are relevant characteristics. That is to say, I would indeed tend to look askance at a moral system that did not challenge its practitioners or was internally rife with inconsistancies.
Moreover, I was speaking against the stance I assumed RPB would be taking; namely, that any non-religious moral system would be one that is both haphazard in design and self-serving in practice. I could, of course, be wrong in that assumption. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
Ding! Wrong! It's not established at all, in fact it's completely wrong. And since this is an axiom of your post, the whole argument just falls apart.
Well, how is it wrong? The whole morality based on survival of the fittest is probably the strongest one, but doesn't really prove that there is Morality. It just proves survival of the fittest. Telling me my argument just falls apart without making any argument as to why isn't very effective, I don't think.
The reason why I say it's pretty well established, by the way, is because all the greatest philosophers had to establish the existence of God in order to believe their arguments could hold any water whatsoever.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Kant, RPB.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: That is, I'd say that they are far far far from the only meaningful measure of a moral system, but I do think they are relevant characteristics. That is to say, I would indeed tend to look askance at a moral system that did not challenge its practitioners or was internally rife with inconsistancies.
Moreover, I was speaking against the stance I assumed RPB would be taking; namely, that any non-religious moral system would be one that is both haphazard in design and self-serving in practice. I could, of course, be wrong in that assumption.
I am taking that stance. My whole point being that without a belief, any belief, in a higher power, there is no true morality. If anyone can truly establish otherwise, you should be writing books about it, because you'd be the first.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Kant, RPB.
Oh, sorry. I thought we were all laughing at Kant. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, if you don't understand it, I suppose that is one expected response.
Can you explain it to me, just to show me that you do understand? Thanks. Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Kant, RPB.
Oh, sorry. I thought we were all laughing at Kant.
That was a joke, by the way. I don't know if I made that clear. You know, even he believed God had to exist and there was no way around it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Or John Rawls, or, you know, Aristotle. I'm not picky. Any sort of reasonable explanation in your own words would suffice.
Trust me: I'm easy. *grin
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Well, if you don't understand it, I suppose that is one expected response.
Can you explain it to me, just to show me that you do understand? Thanks.
I don't think Kant even understood it.
By the way, I guess I should go and read the page you linked to. 'Cause I don't even know what it is we're talking about!
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
Ding! Wrong! It's not established at all, in fact it's completely wrong. And since this is an axiom of your post, the whole argument just falls apart.
Well, how is it wrong? The whole morality based on survival of the fittest is probably the strongest one, but doesn't really prove that there is Morality. It just proves survival of the fittest. Telling me my argument just falls apart without making any argument as to why isn't very effective, I don't think.
The reason why I say it's pretty well established, by the way, is because all the greatest philosophers had to establish the existence of God in order to believe their arguments could hold any water whatsoever.
Most of those 'greatest philosophers' lived in Christian societies and had a vested interest in establishing their conception of morality on a Christian framework.
Just because Kant saw a belief in God as a prerequisite of morality doesn't make it a truism. The Golden Rule, Objectivism, humanist ethics and other value systems can exist quite independently of religion.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Well, if you don't understand it, I suppose that is one expected response.
Can you explain it to me, just to show me that you do understand? Thanks.
I don't think Kant even understood it.
By the way, I guess I should go and read the page you linked to. 'Cause I don't even know what it is we're talking about!
I'm pretty sure Kant did. I'm also pretty sure most of the people who write about him don't, though.
There is indeed a lot of hot air in academia of all areas.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Aristotle? Are we still talking about a moral system or morality itself? I don't know about John Rawls, unfortunately.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Just because Kant saw a belief in God as a prerequisite of morality doesn't make it a truism. The Golden Rule, Objectivism, humanist ethics and other value systems can exist quite independently of religion.
As can Kant's system, I'd argue. The system is tenable without God as an anchor.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I heartily agree.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Well, I'm gonna have to admit that my knowledge of philosophy is not in depth enough to argue with you, CT. I just know that from what I am read up on, which includes much of Plato, and Descarte, and all the arguments C.S. Lewis used to make his points, morality is highly unlikely to exist without a God.
Also, it is pretty much impossible to separate ones idea of reality from what one believes, and since I believe in God, moral aboslutes seem pretty apparent to me in in that paradigm.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: My whole point being that without a belief, any belief, in a higher power, there is no true morality.
Why must a higher power dictate what is right and wrong? Are you saying that without a god telling us what's right and wrong, we will cease to have any altruistic guiding force to make us act correctly?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Aristotle? Are we still talking about a moral system or morality itself? I don't know about John Rawls, unfortunately.
What is the difference, to you?
Aristotle ==> early "virtue ethics" John Rawls ==> a non-theologically-oriented Kantian and social contractarian, see "veil of ignorance" Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion.
Ding! Wrong! It's not established at all, in fact it's completely wrong. And since this is an axiom of your post, the whole argument just falls apart.
Well, how is it wrong? The whole morality based on survival of the fittest is probably the strongest one, but doesn't really prove that there is Morality. It just proves survival of the fittest. Telling me my argument just falls apart without making any argument as to why isn't very effective, I don't think.
The reason why I say it's pretty well established, by the way, is because all the greatest philosophers had to establish the existence of God in order to believe their arguments could hold any water whatsoever.
Well, since I was basically echoing what other people had already said, and provided excellent arguments for, I didn't feel any need to clutter up the important point. But since it seems you didn't read those arguments : Simple enlightened self-interest will tell you that it's not a good idea to go about hurting people, because they'll hurt you back. It's just more cost-effective, by and large, to be nice. That's your golden rule right there; and voila, morality.
Edit : And, by the way, an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy anyway, but it's particularly weak when you're evidently cherry-picking your authorities. Plenty of philosophers, starting with Aristotle, felt absolutely no need to prove any gods. I suggest you become familiar with some philosophers who were not Christian apologists; picking only the Western tradition from about 1000 to 1700 CE is going to give you an extremely skewed view of what 'good philosophers' there are.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Real quick on Aristotle. One of the foundations of his philosophy was in the idea of Purpose. Namely, all things have purpose. That is at the essence of a belief in God, I think. Because without a creator, there is no purpose.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Well, I'm gonna have to admit that my knowledge of philosophy is not in depth enough to argue with you, CT.
That's fine. Really, it is. We don't have to argue.
quote:I just know that from what I am read up on, which includes much of Plato, and Descarte, and all the arguments C.S. Lewis used to make his points, morality is highly unlikely to exist without a God.
I think it's clear that you haven't read enough to make sweeping judgments about the set of all moral systems, then. Doesn't mean there is something wrong with you, by the way. I myself refrain from making sweeping statments about economic systems, since my own familiarity with the subject is quite limited.
quote:Also, it is pretty much impossible to separate ones idea of reality from what one believes, and since I believe in God, moral aboslutes seem pretty apparent to me in in that paradigm.
Fair enough. It might be interesting to do other reading and see if this still holds true for you, though. You might find moral absolutes elsewhere, too, and this wouldn't (or shouldn't, IMO) have to affect your belief in God. It might just mean, for you, that there is God and this.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But there can be purpose without a creator.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Sorry, Claudia, I'm not qualified to engage you here. Hitoshi, King of Men, I may be missing your guys point, but I think you guys are definitely missing mine. I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality. So Hitoshi, I'm not saying that we need our morality dictated to us by God. I'm saying that there is no Morality without him. I believe we are imbued with it in our being. And it comes from somewhere, and not evolutions un-purpose of self-preservation.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Real quick on Aristotle. One of the foundations of his philosophy was in the idea of Purpose. Namely, all things have purpose. That is at the essence of a belief in God, I think. Because without a creator, there is no purpose.
That's kind of like saying that most city buses run on wheels, and since wheels are involved in locomotion, birds cannot fly.
Aristotle was about as far as a theologist as you can be. He didn't (AFAIK) even use the word "God" or anything which could be reasonably translated as such. Are you thinking of an "efficient cause" or a "final cause"? Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Getting away from the discussion of ethics without a god for a moment, let me consider ethics with a god. I suppose we would agree that killing is generally bad, although sometimes necessary to avoid a worse evil. Now then, do you consider that this is a law that your god has set up, like "No other god before me"; or is it a moral rule that exists independent of your god, but which the god chooses to follow and enforce because it has decided to be good?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Sorry, Claudia, I'm not qualified to engage you here. Hitoshi, King of Men, I may be missing your guys point, but I think you guys are definitely missing mine. I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality. So Hitoshi, I'm not saying that we need our morality dictated to us by God. I'm saying that there is no Morality without him. I believe we are imbued with it in our being. And it comes from somewhere, and not evolutions un-purpose of self-preservation.
Ah so, you answered my question while I was posting. You are saying, then, that since your god does not exist, killing is ok? The only reason killing is bad is because your god has decreed it?
As an aside, the existence of some Platonic ideal of morality is irrelevant; since you could never measure the effects of such a thing, who cares? What you call the 'illusion' of morality is all you'll ever be able to see, short of experimenting with cyanide; a difference that makes no difference is no difference.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah, okay. I see you are wishing not to pursue our course of discussion. Again, fair enough.
You will see, though, that your statement of personal faith for yourself makes more sense (and is more tenable) than the following:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: So, gonna try and tackle this one now. Let's say we must base our laws on something. Let's try morality. Now I think it's pretty well established that there is no morality without religion. Because the only alternative to religious morality is either nihilistic morality or the morality of naturalism from which we get Darwinism and evolution. So the only morality there is is survival of the fittest, which is not really morality.
Here you speak of more than just your personal faith, but of claims about:
1) what is generally established about morality 2) the limitations (in your eyes) of non-religious morality
You see, when you make claims about specific other things in the world, then you are making claims about other than just your personal belief. And that's different. But if your (clarified) position is just that other things don't make sense to you yourself, well, then that is hard to disagree with.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
You're right CT. As are you, King, in your edit. But the thing is --and this an excuse, I am aware-- There is only so much time to live your life, and when it comes to finding a basis for your beliefs, either you can constantly question the basic premises and never get off the ground, or you can feel that you are reasonably confident that it is okay to proceed to the next level. I questioned the basic premise of existence, and found that there must be a creator. From there, I've continued on.
This is the basic premise, and I don't know how it could possibly be refuted. There is purpose in existence. Purpose cannot be the product of chance. Therefore, existence is not the product of chance.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There is only so much time to live your life, and when it comes to finding a basis for your beliefs, either you can constantly question the basic premises and never get off the ground, or you can feel that you are reasonably confident that it is okay to proceed to the next level.
Now that's a real "false dichotomy"!
But I'm glad you have found some answers that give you peace. That is a good thing. It's more dicey when you start to apply what works for you to others, especially without (IMO) rigourous self-reflection, but at least the peace you have is a good thing in itself.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Moving to fast...
I guess all I'm saying is that it seems apparent that there is a Creator. And not just to me, but to the vast majority of people, throught all of history. Now, decisions have to be made in a government. Since most people believe that God has a purpose, it would be democratic to make those decisions based upon what we (the majority) feel ir God's purpose. Unfortunately, that too often results in oppresion or unfairness in some way. But relying on a system of morality that is supposedly independent of God is not fair either, and it certainly isn't democratic.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There is only so much time to live your life, and when it comes to finding a basis for your beliefs, either you can constantly question the basic premises and never get off the ground, or you can feel that you are reasonably confident that it is okay to proceed to the next level.
Now that's a real "false dichotomy"!
But I'm glad you have found some answers that give you peace. That is a good thing. It's more dicey when you start to apply what works for you to others, especially without (IMO) rigourous self-reflection, but at least the peace you have is a good thing in itself.
I
t would appear to be a flase dichotomy, but I don't think it is. If Descartes continued to doubt the existence of God, then he never would have gotten past "I think, therefore I am."
And don't jump to conlusions! These answers haven't given me peace! Why do you think I'm here, arguing with everyone?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: You're right CT. As are you, King, in your edit. But the thing is --and this an excuse, I am aware-- There is only so much time to live your life, and when it comes to finding a basis for your beliefs, either you can constantly question the basic premises and never get off the ground, or you can feel that you are reasonably confident that it is okay to proceed to the next level.
Well, in principle I have to agree with you here, but in that case, what are you doing in a thread that is (is now, anyway) precisely about discussing those basic premises?
quote:This is the basic premise, and I don't know how it could possibly be refuted. There is purpose in existence. Purpose cannot be the product of chance. Therefore, existence is not the product of chance.
I refute it thus: In the first place there is clearly no purpose; in the second place purpose can in fact arise from chance. So your argument falls down in two places.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Moving to fast...
I guess all I'm saying is that it seems apparent that there is a Creator. And not just to me, but to the vast majority of people, throught all of history.
(You might be interested in looking up the numbers on this, specifically Buddhism, Chinese Traditionalism, Ancient Greece, curent numbers of atheists, and the like. Also note systems of belief in multiple "creators" -- you might well find that Hinduism, with its multiple gods, outweighs monotheism.
If your reasons for belief in a monotheistic deity rests in numbers of people who agree with you, then this could be tricky.)
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
I'm sorry, King, but you're not making any sense to me. There clearly IS purpose. Did you mean to write that sentence, or did it happen on accident? And second, explain how purpose COULD come about by chance?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Moving to fast...
I guess all I'm saying is that it seems apparent that there is a Creator. And not just to me, but to the vast majority of people, throught all of history. Now, decisions have to be made in a government. Since most people believe that God has a purpose, it would be democratic to make those decisions based upon what we (the majority) feel ir God's purpose. Unfortunately, that too often results in oppresion or unfairness in some way. But relying on a system of morality that is supposedly independent of God is not fair either, and it certainly isn't democratic.
Sheesh, dude. In the first place, majority decision is not democracy, it's mob rule. Democracy is majority rule plus minority rights, including the right not to have somebody else's morality imposed on you. In the second place, most people through history believed slavery was natural and necessary too, but I don't see you arguing we should be democratic on that score. If you invoke an argument only when it happens to support what you want to do, it's a bad argument.
And in the third place, the existence or not of a creator is not a moral question, but a question of fact, to be decided by appeal to the evidence, and not, not, NOT by counting noses. Especially the noses of, you should excuse the expression, pig-ignorant shepherders two thousand years dead!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality.
How would you distinguish between the two, all else being held equal?
I submit that there is no meaningful difference between an "actual" Morality and an "illusory" morality in a world where the observable results of either are indistinguishable.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
It doesn't Claudia. But since you bring it up, my argument is based on a Creator. Monotheism, Polytheism, Buddhism, they all believe this came from somewhere. The void in Buddhism isn't quite as purposeless as us westerners believe. The only true alternative to the ultimate basis for belief in the divine (Purpose) is Darwinism.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:It would appear to be a flase dichotomy, but I don't think it is. If Descartes continued to doubt the existence of God, then he never would have gotten past "I think, therefore I am."
It is a false dichotomy. It's possible to continue to question your basic assumptions while still moving forward, just as you can use a (physical) map to find a store, even if you aren't entirely sure it is entirely accurate as a map. You just fold in the new information as you go.
quote:And don't jump to conlusions! These answers haven't given me peace! Why do you think I'm here, arguing with everyone?
Ah, well. Continue to argue and read and puzzle through it, then. It makes for a good life.
'night, all. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I'm sorry, King, but you're not making any sense to me. There clearly IS purpose. Did you mean to write that sentence, or did it happen on accident? And second, explain how purpose COULD come about by chance?
What it says is what I meant: There is no purpose. You just have to look at the platypus to realise that. There's total uselessness for you!
As for purpose arising from chance, why, once again you can consider the humble platypus: Nothing but a means to produce more platypuses, yet it evolved by mutation and selection, same as the rest of us.
This may look contradictory; it's because I'm using 'purpose' in two different senses. First sense: The platypus does not have a place in some grand Scheme Of Things imposed by an outside agency, ie a god. Second sense: The platypus acts in such a way as to produce more platypuses; therefore, it has some dim awareness of a thing it wants to do. (If you don't like platypuses for this, put in some more self-aware organism, like dolphins.) In other words, the purpose of getting laid arose by chance.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality.
How would you distinguish between the two, all else being held equal?
I submit that there is no meaningful difference between an "actual" Morality and an "illusory" morality in a world where the observable results of either are indistinguishable.
Well, you can't, and that's an excellent observation. But what you CAN do is determine whether an illusionary morality is worth basing anything on. Beliefs, laws, whatever. So for the purposes of government, the one that seems to have an actual existence is probably best. It's alos best for making the decision to be a good person.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hum. This thread is moving fast. I'm going to give it a rest for some minutes to give everyone a chance to catch up. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: It doesn't Claudia. But since you bring it up, my argument is based on a Creator. Monotheism, Polytheism, Buddhism, they all believe this came from somewhere. The void in Buddhism isn't quite as purposeless as us westerners believe. The only true alternative to the ultimate basis for belief in the divine (Purpose) is Darwinism.
Sugar, if you haven't read or otherwise learned about the other options, how can you make claims about them? That doesn't make sense.
"This came from somewhere" does not equal "there is a God"
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
It doesn't?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Nope. Not necessarily.
(It's in the reading. *grin)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And speaking of divine morality, how do you decide whose divine morality is correct? If you're going to try to force everyone else to follow a divine morality, what laws do you pick? There are plenty of religiously-based beliefs that would sound pretty ridiculous when applied as law, such as deciding that it is immoral and wrong for women to wear pants.
-pH
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Resh, are you asserting that the ultimate basis for belief in the divine is a desire to understand where humanity came from? Because while I don't disagree, it's rare to hear someone who doesn't share my worldview come out and say it.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Sugar, if you haven't read or otherwise learned about the other options, how can you make claims about them? That doesn't make sense.
"This came from somewhere" does not equal "there is a God"
The only reason why I can make claims about things I don't know about is because if I couldn't I would not have anything to say. And neither would anyone else. I doubt you, as nice as you are (thanks by the way, you've been making this much more pleasant for me than some others have been) know everything there is to know about Christianity, but it is still okay for you to talk about it. I mean, in the great scheme of things, I don't know nothin about nothin. But I'm human, and I want to talk about these things I know nothing about. Maybe one day I'll know something. And some people learn by absorbing, but I learn best by talking about them. Contrary to Hatrack popular belief, I actually do try to understand what people are saying to me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But what you CAN do is determine whether an illusionary morality is worth basing anything on. Beliefs, laws, whatever.
What would you use to determine this worth? Are we measuring the success of a given moral code by certain objective standards? Which metrics would you choose to benchmark?
More importantly, does this mean that the results of a belief are more important than the rationale behind it, or even the belief itself?
----------
quote:The only reason why I can make claims about things I don't know about is because if I couldn't I would not have anything to say. And neither would anyone else.
Resh, not EVERYTHING is an either/or situation. For example, I know a little bit about sports; I am capable of intelligently conversing about sports on a limited variety of topics. When we move to a topic about which I know little, I have a choice to make: I can pretend to know something about this topic, and make grand, sweeping, absolute statements about something I have very little knowledge of (like you've been doing about philosophy in this thread); or I can speak from the limits of my knowledge and then, once they're reached, ask questions or just listen as the conversation moves around me.
You could, for example, say something like "I'm not aware of any argument for morality that doesn't require a God, but then I'm not that familiar with the last two hundred years of philosophy." And that would be absolutely unimpeachable, and someone might well step up and fill in the blanks for you -- probably in a MUCH less hostile way than if you just said "there is no morality that doesn't require God."
Your familiarity with philosophical thought seems completely limited to apologia. This limits your perspective on these topics to the point that you simply don't have the knowledge base necessary to make sweeping assertions with any sort of credibility or authority.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: And speaking of divine morality, how do you decide whose divine morality is correct? If you're going to try to force everyone else to follow a divine morality, what laws do you pick? There are plenty of religiously-based beliefs that would sound pretty ridiculous when applied as law, such as deciding that it is immoral and wrong for women to wear pants.
-pH
This, despite some very loud protests, is where democracy comes in. We gotta make a decision about these things somehow, and contrary to what progressives seem to believe, atheism is not the default position.
And I just realized that I just took my natural tone, so to speak. Is that sort of writing what pisses people off? Because I've been making a real effort to soften everything I've written, but not with the above paragraph.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But what you CAN do is determine whether an illusionary morality is worth basing anything on. Beliefs, laws, whatever.
What would you use to determine this worth? Are we measuring the success of a given moral code by certain objective standards? Which metrics would you choose to benchmark?
More importantly, does this mean that the results of a belief are more important than the rationale behind it, or even the belief itself?
These questions, Tom, I believe are for the individual to answer.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What pisses people off is when they try to engage you in discussion and you directly insult their intelligence.
But that's the thing. Democracy shouldn't really be about God because everyone has different ideas of if there's a God, how many gods there are, what he/she/it/they are like, and what said God entit(y/ies) want. And more people believing X does not make X correct or moral. The early Christians were in the minority and were persecuted terribly. I think when it comes to legislation, the focus should be on allowing people the freedom to choose what is moral and what isn't, insofar as it doesn't interfere with the well-being of others.
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Resh, are you asserting that the ultimate basis for belief in the divine is a desire to understand where humanity came from? Because while I don't disagree, it's rare to hear someone who doesn't share my worldview come out and say it.
Missed this one; moving so fast.
I think that that is a possibility. I think most people believe what they believe because that is what they are taught. But for the most skeptical of us all, this would probably be it. C.S. Lewis, Descartes, and Socrates comes to mind.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The only reason why I can make claims about things I don't know about is because if I couldn't I would not have anything to say.
You can ask questions about them instead, or you can make provisional statements. Making declarations of fact (or claims of truth) isn't the only option. [or, what TomD said. ]
quote:And neither would anyone else. I doubt you, as nice as you are (thanks by the way, you've been making this much more pleasant for me than some others have been) know everything there is to know about Christianity, but it is still okay for you to talk about it.
For sure (and thanks). I don't make sweeping statements about it, though. At least, I try not to, as it isn't helpful to me or others.
quote: I mean, in the great scheme of things, I don't know nothin about nothin. But I'm human, and I want to talk about these things I know nothing about. Maybe one day I'll know something. And some people learn by absorbing, but I learn best by talking about them. Contrary to Hatrack popular belief, I actually do try to understand what people are saying to me.
That's great. Really, it is. And I like the RPB I've seen here much much more than who I'd seen previously, for what it's worth. These are some important topics, and they are worth puzzling through together with people you trust to work with you, to try to understand you as you try to understand them.
Anyway, it is past my bedtime. I'll look forward to catching up on this thread later. My sweetie and I have an early departure time tomorrow, so it'll be awhile.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:These questions, Tom, I believe are for the individual to answer.
Then they're meaningless questions from a broader perspective. Because if big-M Morality and little-m morality ARE equivalent except in their results, and those results are up to each individual to measure, what you're really saying is that morality itself is relative.
I don't disagree, but I just want to point out that you have just rediscovered moral relativism AND the second important observation of existentialism. Based on what you've said about those philosophies, I suspect this was not a desired outcome.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: What pisses people off is when they try to engage you in discussion and you directly insult their intelligence.
But that's the thing. Democracy shouldn't really be about God because everyone has different ideas of if there's a God, how many gods there are, what he/she/it/they are like, and what said God entit(y/ies) want. And more people believing X does not make X correct or moral. The early Christians were in the minority and were persecuted terribly. I think when it comes to legislation, the focus should be on allowing people the freedom to choose what is moral and what isn't, insofar as it doesn't interfere with the well-being of others.
-pH
I don't think that about the majority opinion makes it right. I am specifically talking about goverment. And in that regards, what is required is the best system possible. The best possible is probably not what we have, or have had, but it's the best so far. Or at least it was. The creeping influence of atheism into our system is eroding it's strength.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The creeping influence of atheism into our system is eroding it's strength.
This, by the way, is an example of a sweeping statement made in a thuddingly ignorant way.
If you're going to make this sort of assertion, you need to explain WHY you think a) secularism is "creeping" into our system rather than built directly into it; and b) why you think atheism erodes the strength of a democratic government.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:The creeping influence of atheism into our system is eroding it's strength.
Why? Because of your Morality vs. morality? Then you go right back to the problem of different people having different interpretations of what morality is.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*post so I don't have to look at the scary post count of this thread*
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:These questions, Tom, I believe are for the individual to answer.
Then they're meaningless questions from a broader perspective. Because if big-M Morality and little-m morality ARE equivalent except in their results, and those results are up to each individual to measure, what you're really saying is that morality itself is relative.
I don't disagree, but I just want to point out that you have just rediscovered moral relativism AND the second important observation of existentialism. Based on what you've said about those philosophies, I suspect this was not a desired outcome.
Don't get ahead of me. Just because i think everyone has to make their own decisions at some point doesn't mean I don't think that sometimes they are wrong. Confusing...
What I mean to say is that I don't think someone can come to accept moral relativism without screwing up in their thinking somewhere along the way. The reason why I leave it wide open is because I don't think I'm exempt from screwing it up myself.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Just because i think everyone has to make their own decisions at some point doesn't mean I don't think that sometimes they are wrong.
Then you failed to answer my earlier question. What system should be used to determine the effectiveness of a moral code, and should moral codes be judged on their effectiveness alone? If there are right answers to those questions, what's your take on them?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The creeping influence of atheism into our system is eroding it's strength.
This, by the way, is an example of a sweeping statement made in a thuddingly ignorant way.
If you're going to make this sort of assertion, you need to explain WHY you think a) secularism is "creeping" into our system rather than built directly into it; and b) why you think atheism erodes the strength of a democratic government.
Come on now, I know that. I get criticized for insulting peoples' intellegence but it happens to me all the time. The thing is, I'm sure you didn't mean it, because I know I do it without meaning to all the time.
Honestly, I'm just tired of saying "I think.. or I believe.." before every statement I make. It should be a given that eeeeverything I say is a statement of my opinion UNLESS it's an obvious fact. I BELIEVE that the creeping influence of atheism is eroding our nation's strength, and I could really make a strong argument for it. But how many topics do we need to cover in this thread?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What is your "strong argument?" Why is atheism harmful in the first place?
-pH
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Just because i think everyone has to make their own decisions at some point doesn't mean I don't think that sometimes they are wrong.
Then you failed to answer my earlier question. What system should be used to determine the effectiveness of a moral code, and should moral codes be judged on their effectiveness alone? If there are right answers to those questions, what's your take on them?
I counter your hypothetical with another: Who should we let determine the effectiveness of a moral system, and who do we have determine whether the person assigned to make that determination is the most qualified to do so?
And how do we determine if what is determined to be the most effective moral code are to be determined on their moral effectiveness alone, or if we should instead determine their effectiveness on something other than how effective they are?
The last sentence is my favorite.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: What is your "strong argument?" Why is atheism harmful in the first place?
-pH
pH, if you remeber to start a thread on this subject sometime on Monday, I promise I will present an argument to you (as soon as I think of one). But I'm simply unable to continue, and I got some snowboarding to do tomorrow morning. And then Christmassy things.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Have a nice Christmas, everyone. Good night!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Who should we let determine the effectiveness of a moral system, and who do we have determine whether the person assigned to make that determination is the most qualified to do so?
And how do we determine if what is determined to be the most effective moral code are to be determined on their moral effectiveness alone, or if we should instead determine their effectiveness on something other than how effective they are?
And here's where I answer: we don't. Morality is relative, and these questions are up to the individual. Because individuals have to exist in societies, individuals can use mechanisms ranging from democratic votes to armed warfare to reconcile their moral codes with those with which they do not agree. Hell is, after all, other people.
I can say this because I believe morality is a polite but necessary fiction, like our sense of self and our belief in free will. Someone who believes otherwise, however, actually needs to come up with an answer to those questions.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
RPB, just a note before you go (or for when you return): It is so much easier to be pleasant with you when one is not being told to go back to playing with dolls, or that one is not an adult, or being called a "stupid-head." There are some things in this thread which really should be apologized for, and you would show yourself a better man for doing it. I'd like to see that happen.
Merry Christmas to you ,as well, and I wish you some of the peace you said eludes you. Or at least good egg nog. *smile
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, pausing my posts doesn't seem to have done any good. I'd still like an answer to this one, which appears to have gotten lost in the shuffle:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Sorry, Claudia, I'm not qualified to engage you here. Hitoshi, King of Men, I may be missing your guys point, but I think you guys are definitely missing mine. I'm talking about the actual existence of Morality (purposely capitalized), and not the illusion of morality. So Hitoshi, I'm not saying that we need our morality dictated to us by God. I'm saying that there is no Morality without him. I believe we are imbued with it in our being. And it comes from somewhere, and not evolutions un-purpose of self-preservation.
Ah so, you answered my question while I was posting. You are saying, then, that since your god does not exist, killing is ok? The only reason killing is bad is because your god has decreed it?
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
Just a side note: CT, thanks. I wasn't aware you were paying attention to that particular bit of info over on Sake, but--thank you for helping clarify the discussion while I wasn't around to do it myself. And yes, you have it nailed--I don't know if they suspect my orientation, but it's plain for anyone with an eye open to see that it's easy to needle me on my masculinity, and they do it. Constantly.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: RPB, just a note before you go (or for when you return): It is so much easier to be pleasant with you when one is not being told to go back to playing with dolls, or that one is not an adult, or being called a "stupid-head." There are some things in this thread which really should be apologized for, and you would show yourself a better man for doing it. I'd like to see that happen.
Actually, CT, that is excellent advice. So good, that I took it many hours ago on a different thread. pH was the only one I was being like that toward, and I would like to say I was being that way toward her because I thought it was what she wanted. I'd like to say that, but it wouldn't be true. So she showed up and I think I apologized, thought it might have been convoluted, since I'm always trying to make a point (if you haven't noticed).* In case it wasn't clear, I'm sorry pH.
*I just realized as I was writing that I may have an unhealthy level of narcissism. It never occurred to me so clearly before. No one's ever accused me of of being narcissistic, but I'm gonna have a look into it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ah so, you answered my question while I was posting. You are saying, then, that since your god does not exist, killing is ok? The only reason killing is bad is because your god has decreed it?
KoM, did you intend this question to be serious? I'm assuming now you must have, since you've repeated it. But frankly, it's a cheap rhetorical trick and I suspect you know that.
Clearly, biggle doesn't believe that "[his] god does not exist." This is simply "Do you still beat your wife" transposed into metaphysics.
For the record, I agree that all morality comes from God. Asking me if there would be no morality without God is like asking what we would be like if we didn't exist or what a circle would be like if it weren't round - a meaningless question.*
It is immoral to kill other humans (in general) not because "God said so" but because God made the universe and us in such a way that killing is immoral - that is, that killing a human being creates a specific type of harm. Had God made the universe in another way - say, for example, it had respawn zones like Quake - then killing humans might not be as generally wrong as it is, although it probably would be wrong in some or many circumstances. Ultimately, yes, God did "say so" when he chose to create the world this way. But it's very different than thinking morality is just a decree.
*My now standard disclaimer that while I believe all morality comes from God, atheists can be moral with respect to those aspects of morality that do not arise from one's direct duties toward God. In this case, direct is meant to exclude those duties that act or omit actions with respect to individual people but that are really duties to God (i.e., what you do to the least of your brothers, etc.). In some sense, all morality is a duty to God so atheists fulfill many duties to God when they fulfill their duties towards others.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Thanks for that Dagonee. It was well worded, strong, and at the same time about as non-confrontational as a statement of belief can be.
If anyone on either side of the aisle of any of our contentious discussions wants to really teach (as opposed to preach or harrangue) and/or to learn, they'd do well to follow Dag's example (here and elsewhere) of calm, precise languange couched in an attitude of really trying to understand and be understood.
Happy Holidays Dag. You're part of what makes Hatrack worth the effort.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That is an excellent post, Dagonee. Your reputation is well-deserved.
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Actually, CT, that is excellent advice. So good, that I took it many hours ago on a different thread.
That's great, and it speaks well of you. Especially your willingness to repeat the apology again here. Well done.
quote:pH was the only one I was being like that toward,
Beg to differ. The Pixiest and Olivet were also caught in the crossfire, and in my decided opinion, deserve the same grace and acknowledgment of wrong from you. That is hard to do, even when merited. I think you can do it.
(I can also quote here the posts I am referring to, but I don't think that's necessary. If it is, I'm happy to come back and do so, and we can discuss it, should you like.)
quote:*I just realized as I was writing that I may have an unhealthy level of narcissism. It never occurred to me so clearly before. No one's ever accused me of of being narcissistic, but I'm gonna have a look into it.
I, too, have been figuring out things about myself lately that I do not like. *wryly
For me, this involves narcissism, unwarranted assumptions, deep-seated fears, suppressed self-loathing, not-so-suppressed hubris, and an unhealthy dose of willful ignorance. Go, me! *sigh
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: For me, this involves narcissism, unwarranted assumptions, deep-seated fears, suppressed self-loathing, not-so-suppressed hubris, and an unhealthy dose of willful ignorance. Go, me! *sigh
Welcome to the club, CT. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
*laughing
It's a merry, merry time of year, eh?
*smile
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Ah so, you answered my question while I was posting. You are saying, then, that since your god does not exist, killing is ok? The only reason killing is bad is because your god has decreed it?
KoM, did you intend this question to be serious? I'm assuming now you must have, since you've repeated it. But frankly, it's a cheap rhetorical trick and I suspect you know that.
Yes, I would like to know what Resh thinks of the question; as for the rhetoric, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
quote:It is immoral to kill other humans (in general) not because "God said so" but because God made the universe and us in such a way that killing is immoral - that is, that killing a human being creates a specific type of harm.
Hang on, hang on. That just puts the question at one further remove: Could your god have created a universe such that causing harm is a good thing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
A more apt question, I think, is: Could God have created a universe in which everything we did, including killing other people, was a good thing?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Nah, the answer for that one is
a) It did b) Free will, free will, free will!
I like my question better.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks CT and Karl.
quote:Could your god have created a universe such that causing harm is a good thing?
I actually have little interest in this question, mainly for the reason given in response to Tom's. If it were a good thing, then either "harm" or "good thing" would be so different as to be another thing altogether.
quote:Could God have created a universe in which everything we did, including killing other people, was a good thing?
Yes, but only if the nature of "killing" and/or "people" was very different.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Could your god have created a universe such that causing harm is a good thing?
I actually have little interest in this question, mainly for the reason given in response to Tom's. If it were a good thing, then either "harm" or "good thing" would be so different as to be another thing altogether.
Are you saying, then, that 'harm' is that which by definition is bad? If so, aren't you saying that there exists a morality which your god cannot touch; that it may define what things are harmful, but is powerless to decree that harm be a good thing?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Sugar, if you haven't read or otherwise learned about the other options, how can you make claims about them? That doesn't make sense.
CT, are you or your mom from the South?
I love it when women I don't really know say that to me, but so few do that these days. About the only place left where I can get a good 'Sugar' is at the Waffle House.
(Note, this is not my backhanded way of asking to be addressed as such on this forum. I'm just making an observation.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If so, aren't you saying that there exists a morality which your god cannot touch; that it may define what things are harmful, but is powerless to decree that harm be a good thing?
No, I'm not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, would you care to explain?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:You just have to look at the platypus to realise that. There's total uselessness for you!
Nah. The platypus is proof of God's sense of humor.
(Just in case my life weren't proof enough. )
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Here are a "few" more thoughts, just to add one more viewpoint into the mix in hopes of getting somewhere useful in this discussion:
First off, because the environment surrounding this issue is so heated as to render a few clarifications and disclaimers necessary, let me try to preemptively counter a few of the more common arguments put forth against people who share my view, or similar views. Not all of the arguments I'm trying to counter have been put forth here, and some might even seem to be strawmen or include false dichotomies, but I find them prevalent enough (and taken very seriously often enough) in meatspace to warrant the inclusion of my rebuttals when I'm going for a general precis-type thingy here:
1. I am not an old fat white man who is in a position of power trying to keep them Damn Queers (TM) down so as not to disturb my tenuous hold on the reigns of my oppressive, patriarchal, and smugly bigoted system of monopolistic corruption. I am fifty percent Caucasian, but the other fifty is Hispanic/Native South American. I have at least as much "right" to feeling "oppressed" by the "old fat white man" (which is in fact a deeply racist stereotype) as any other group (and more, if anything, than some). I am also pretty young; twenty-one this past September does not an aged dictator make. I am, however, fairly cherubic, if that helps to build a case against me. *grin*
2. I have utterly no animosity towards homosexuals as a group. If an individual homosexual intentionally behaves violently, cruelly, or impolitely, then of course I would indeed look down on him or her, but only in the same way I'd look down at any other member of any other group who behaved the same way; it would have nothing to do with their orientation. I'm wary of the patronizing "but some of my best friends are black!" attitude, but for what it's worth, one of my very best friends for nearly a decade is a semi-outed bisexual, and while I have not gotten along particularly well (though never particularly badly, either) with a few of the other gay people I've known, it was for reasons that had everything to do with the difference between their personalities and mine, not whatever they did in their bedrooms. I have no wish to see good people like my friend hurt for my differing viewpoint, but I do feel an obligation to spell out my reasoning when I honestly disagree with someone's position for what might be seen as somewhat unusual or uncommon reasons.
3. I believe that if I had a compelling reason to, I could be attracted to a member of the same sex myself. This does nothing to prove or disprove that sexuality is a spectrum and I'm merely revealing my own core bisexuality, for I am in fact deeply straight. The difference between me and some other males might be that I am also a visual artist, and I don't seem to have the same odd loathing for the male form that many of my peers (including many, if not most, of my female friends) have, or at least profess to have. I can't even count the number of people I've heard claim that the male body is somehow less aesthetically pleasing than the female form. People who refer to the female genitals in derogatory ways are hounded out of the room, but people who refer to the male organs sneeringly as being just so obviously disgusting are quite often awarded knowing chuckles. Males and females have an equal potential to be beautiful; there is grace and power and, yes, beauty in both the masculine and feminine examples of humanity. The forms of our bodies are lovely in their brilliantly-evolved functionality.
4. I am not a Fundamentalist Christian trying to force-feed my religion down poor heathen throats. I am agnostic lately bordering on atheistic, and while I have a deep respect for many religions and was raised in an (at best nominally) "Christian" household, I do not currently subscribe to any organized religious dogma or ideology (though I'm quite unafraid to keep from ruling out the possibility for conversion in the future, and I do recognize that most, if not all, humans do in fact act upon at the very least an unorganized "religion" or "faith" of whatever they hold to be foundationally, axiomatically "true"). Whatever conclusions I reach have, like all my views, inevitably been shaped, however subconsciously, by what scant religious ideas I was taught in childhood (though I must add that I was a member of a Church that was quite readily in favor of homosexual marriage, and if anything, this should predispose me towards the "supporting" end of the spectrum, as indeed my position was for many years), but I believe I've overcome to the best of my ability those early influences, and I'm confident that my position can be adduced from empirical evidence rather than a nonexisting faith, however pious.
5. I am not angry, spiteful, or vindictive for any reason. I'm perfectly calm as I write this, aside from the normal intensity I get when in the midst of composing. In other words, if anything I say comes out as harsh due to the incompatibility of our beliefs, know that it is my lack of effective rhetorical ability, not malice. I don't think "offense" is a useful emotion anyway, and I try not to indulge in it myself; I view it as a natural storytelling-primate's cautious evolutionary response to exposure to a different community's epic and therefore often irreconcilable causal self-story. I think that the metaphorical road to heaven, not hell, is paved in good intentions; no one group or individual or viewpoint has a monopoly on offense-taking -- and to say anything worth saying will inevitably step on someone's toes -- so I believe that people should be considered on the basis of what their intentions are, as far as we can reasonably ascertain them.
(Tragically, of course, these disclaimers have the effect of weakening me rhetorically, since I've basically started out apologizing for my beliefs even though I do not believe such an apology should, ideally, be necessary -- but I do think that my position is strong enough to take it.)
In other words, if someone can still call my position "homophobic", or based on misplaced faith, misguided naivete, or insecure paranoia, or "biased" (as if every view held by every single person who ever existed wasn't already hopelessly biased), then the words have lost all meaning and are merely being used as bludgeons to silence dissenting viewpoints in such a way as to render the bludgeon-er innocent of the very intolerance of opposing perspectives they're accusing me of. I'm sure there are many rational arguments and counter-worldviews to any position I might take, but I really think this can be a fair discussion of ideas, not a useless round of offense-taking in which people get offended at each other's offense and nothing ever gets solved because we're too busy defending our wounded dignity. Neither do I think we have to go for the obvious "it's easy to anticipate -- and counter for -- the fact that others will accuse you of being bigoted because you really are" position that people on both sides seem to take. It's cool if we disagree, but let's all get over ourselves and be grownups about it for a spell, eh? I think we're gradually getting better at it.
Of course, in expressing my particular views, I'm usually hampered by all the baggage that traditionally comes with the people who share similar conclusions but came to them through and support them with different reasoning. The subcommunities of people who hold that all those God-forsaken gays are evil hellspawn whose emotions are deserving of ridicule or disgust (well, except for lesbian sex, the thought of which is actually kinda hawt) are far more abhorrent to me than most of the homosexuals I'm disagreeing with. I do think, however, that the number of bigots of this mob-leading variety are vastly over-exaggerated.
Both sides of the conflict are thus, in my view, demonizing the other side based not on any actual reasoned discourse but rather through the assumed evilness of all the irrelevant ancillary issues which are purportedly part of a package deal, and so people like me, after arriving at a conclusion which happens to coincide with the majority of one political party are often hounded as if we believed in all the tenets of that team, whether or not the majority of our actual stated opinions have anything to do with the team's stances at all. Apparently, if someone who doesn't conform to the stereotypical "ignorant conservative redneck cowboy" image doesn't support homosexual marriage, their alleged "moderate" position must obviously be a weird rhetorical pose cynically adopted in order to persuade those few who can be convinced that they're unbiased that they're in the right. Thankfully, I think we see on Hatrack that the number of people who take this view of things might be less common than some might suppose.
But it's still pretty messy. Let me say that no matter what your views, violence against someone in retaliation to anything other than immediate physical threat is utterly and wholly unjustified. Whether you want to beat up homosexuals and those who support them or give a smack down to those who would deny you your right to marry someone of the same sex, you're still engaged in a far more uncivilized and anti-communitarian action than anything your supposed "aggressors" ever did. So let's get control of ourselves and just talk for a minute (though the following, like most of our anthropological musings, ain't exactly reproducible science):
"Marriage", conventionally defined for now as being the socially-recognized monogamous reproductive union between a man and woman, has been going on for centuries. Long before there were churches or governments to interfere with our love lives, even before languages, people were gettin' it on with each other. Of course, in the reproductive free-for-all that is natural selection, early primates obviously tried every possible combination of sexual unions in their attempts to pass on their genetic material. Polygamy, for instance, with either female or male harems was undoubtedly practiced. There were countless possible combinations of amorous entanglements, countless social forms for them to function within, countless societies that experimented with the best ways to get everyone good and laid. Have you read about the mating and social customs of some of those little tribes in faraway jungles? Believe me, people have tried everything, no matter how weird it might seem to another culture.The question of whether or not humans are "naturally" monogamous is an interesting one, but not particularly relevant to this particular issue; I believe that we have no true "natural" tendency exclusively one way or another, and even if we did have a predilection towards one system over the other (as I believe many of us do towards serial monogomy), lifelong monogamy would still be a better form -- but that's just me, and smart people on opposite sides disagree. In any case, the male-female unit evolved at some point, and I am currently writing from within a culture where that tradition continued and is still considered to be the norm for many, perhaps most of the people in it.
I believe that the single-male to a single-female unit is the most efficient system possible; it has to do with the underlying reproductive stability that every civilization absolutely must maintain in order to thrive. Can you imagine the chaos if the reproductive free-for-all of those newly-evolved humans was still practiced today? We'd never be able to get anything important done if we all had to worry constantly that our mates might find a different partner, or worse, be kidnapped or raped by whatever hungry-to-pass-their-genes-on passerby came along. Polygamy results in a useless surplus of reproductively irrelevant people with no biological stake in peaceful civil society, other social forms deprive females of protection when they're in the deeply vulnerable late stages of pregnancy, or promote alpha-male violence and tribal reproductive instability, etc. etc. This system has the most chance for everyone to mate and everyone to have protection in vulnerable times, thereby keeping the gene pool fresh and expanding, meaning a larger and healthier human population more suited to adaptation, meaning better species survival.
Because of the differences between male and female physiology and psychology, however, it is very hard for most people to remain in monogamous relationships. The "best" approach for males to produce offspring would be to mate with anything that looked healthy, whereas the "best" approach for females would be to find the strongest male, most able to provide food, protection, etc. during her vulnerable periods, inevitably leading to more than one female per suitable male with leftover male rejects with no opportunity to reproduce. But with this system (or similar ones), the community is always in flux, with an "every man and woman for him or herself" mentality that would rapidly lead to the disintegration or at least instability of the tribe's social cohesion. No way to be friends with another male if there's no extremely powerful social story (usually underlying society unconsciously) reassuring the members of the community that their friends won't try to steal their mates. No way to be friends with another female if there's always a chance that she'll try to mate with your husband and thereby compete for his attentions at providing. Of course, in our utterly specialized society, the necessity of having someone to provide for the mother is often decreased, since with such specialized employment a single mother might still be able to provide for a child. But I don't think it's a trivial struggle; my mom was a single parent for a fair number of years, and she was often worn to the bone when me and my brother were growing up -- and we had it vastly better than many others I observed.
In other words, in order to reap the enormous benefits of a stable community, both males and females must subsume their "natural" strategies for reproduction into a community-sustaining social story that has integrity enough for people to trust and act on. There is, of course, room for a covert number of exceptions to this rule of monogamy, but if the rule set is not actively perceived to have full cooperation of the vast majority of the populace, the people begin to lose faith that their reproductive future in such a society is safe and transfer their allegiance to a community with a rule-set that upholds their values. The surface veneer of consensual civil society lingers on for awhile, as the covert exceptions use it as cover, but things gradually return to the natural free-for-all.
Note that my position does not involve "tricking" or "coercing" people to behave in socially-constructive ways, as I've seen some critics of this view assert. Instead, the only way it has a chance of functioning is, by necessity, when it is adhered to absolutely wholly voluntarily; social sanctions are often the only necessary force to reprimand people who violate the rules; "What a rake," or "that slut", etc. (Such sanctions can obviously be used for malicious purposes, with the intent usually being to secure one's own stake in reproductive society at the expense of someone else's, but that's another essay) People freely choose to enter into these relationships because they are so vastly beneficial as a continuation of peaceful civil society's norms, whether they're consciously thinking about the benefits or not. (Think of how many people say that they have anything but children on their mind and yet still long for someone who understands them, someone that will be as intimate as only a lover can be with them. Mating to reproduce may not be what they consciously have in mind, but our bodies aren't always necessarily in tune with our minds; there's a definite reason that our deepest longings and fears and hopes are often inextricably bound with our relationships with members of whatever sex we're attracted to; what is the biological purpose of such feelings, if not to urge us to find a suitable mate?)
I find it amusingly ironic, by the way, that religious people are very often looked down on with patronizing pity at their sad little existences in which having children is the grand purpose of life, the poor dears, whereas what is often perceived as the more educated atheistic stance is to tout "higher callings" or "more important issues and ideas" or whathaveyou and condemn views like mine as being "zoological" or "mechanistic" or merely "animalistic" as if these are inherently bad or untrue things. In fact, what is often touted as being an intrinsically and inseparably "religious" purpose to life is really the only view that seems to have the only actual scientific justification we have found yet: the sole "purpose" in nature (if something as un-anthropomorphic as nature can be said to have a "purpose"), as far as we can see, is to grow and reproduce, whereas the supposedly more elevated stance of "making my own purpose in life" and not worrying about reproduction at all seems to me to be in fact an utterly faithful religion with no empirical evidence that it is even likely to be possible to be true beyond the sheer sincerity of the believer's beliefs. Many of us in the Western world have become so used to sneering at people who choose to center their lives on children that we forget some of the most basic things: although yes, there are obviously other essential jobs for people in societies to do besides raise children, it is foundationally necessary that children be raised so as to learn and believe that those jobs need doing in the first place, that they really are a part of the community. In other words, good child-rearing is what civilization depends on; a tribe composed wholly of homosexuals who only acted on their sexual predilections (who weren't artificially inseminated, in other words) would die out in a generation. Their existence is utterly dependant upon the vast majority of heterosexual civilization, which in turn is utterly dependant on the fundamental rules governing sexual behaviour that must be utterly adhered to for the safety of the future stability of the community. And yet it is actually regarded as a political or moral statement to admit that reproduction influences the vast majority of human activity, just as it does any successful species.
This cultural transmission, in which adults actively teach children to uphold and conserve the benefits they themselves have reaped of a reproductively stable community is most efficiently disseminated through male and female parents. Because the constant balancing act of monogamy between males and females must be learned, then in a successful marriage, children whether they are male or female grow up with their earliest memories so deep that they're not even consciously aware of them knowing how to act because there was both a mother and a father in their family. They learn what is needed to navigate the intersexual oceans through observing both of their monogamous parents from earliest memory on up continually compromising and reaching consensual agreements.
I do not believe that this is trivial information, and it is indeed important that it be learned early on. Again, the whole basis for community is overcoming seemingly irreconcilable feelings and urges and beliefs between communities of individuals, tribes, nations. Hard enough when in groups of the same sex, with the accompanying understanding of the same anatomy and similar life-experiences and patterns. How much harder, then, is it to bridge all the various differences between males and females, with all their conflicting desires and emotional ups and downs? In a successful marriage, children will have a pre-reconciled world, in which they are shown how to communicate effectively and surmount the vast gulf that separates the sexes -- the farthest, largest physical and mental divide possible among human beings. It is the basis for all further compromise and understanding in their lives, this good example in the formative years of communicating with people who are as different as it is possible for humans to be, in everything from anatomy to the very way that their brains are wired.
This is especially important to me; my parents were divorced as I was growing up, and for years I pretended not to be affected because I was surrounded by adults who assured me that nothing was wrong, it wasn't my fault, etc. etc. Well duh, of course it wasn't my fault for their divorce -- it was absolutely needed, and that wasn't what I was thinking about. But I pretended that it didn't affect me even though it did; it was more on a fundamental level, that I never really got to see a healthy relationship between men and women when I was most able to be genuinely viscerally (as opposed to intellectually) influenced. Add to this the fact that my parents come from utterly different geographical locations, cultures, even languages, and it really drove home to me the idea that society is built from marriages on up, with the process for everything from political negotiations to cooperative scientific experimentation being learned most effectively when one is a tiny little kid. Indeed, if any "revolution" has ever been needed, it wasn't to get women into the workforce, it was to get men back in the home. The compromises needed on a fundamental level to maintain a marriage provide the basis for all other compromises to be understood. I have friends who are just naturals at relationships. I look at them and how they act when they're around their significant others, and I think "How in the world do they know how to do that, act so kindly, be so committed?" Like most things, it had to be learned, but they learned it so early that they don't even think that what they're doing is unusual or noteworthy at all. For them, that's just the way they're supposed to act in order to remain honorable in their eyes. But it's not easy, and I know it certainly doesn't come naturally to me. It's a real achievement.
I'm still pretty messed up. I don't think I've ever had a truly healthy relationship (almost always because of me), and I think it's because I have no idea how to, I have no idea what is expected of me. I go to fast or too slow, I give too much or not enough, I'm too arrogant or too malleable, too rigid or too flexible, too possessively clingy or too coldly aloof, and on and on and on. I think it's a mirror of the free-for-all that would occur if everyone had grown up the same way I did, with no particular directions for how to act correctly. Naturally, of course, kids are tough. If someone can survive growing up some godforsaken thirdworld country long enough to find their way to America and become a doctor or something, then I'm sure that in general most kids won't be torturously scarred for life by being raised by Adam and Steve, or having divorced parents, or any of the countless "hurdles" that are placed in their way. If anything, I think gay marriage is far less harmful than divorce, which is far less harmful than an abusive home. But it doesn't mean that it's a trivial struggle of willpower.
Similarly, I don't agree with the comparisons made between homosexual marriage and the absolutely essential quest for equal civil rights for women and racial minorities; homosexuality, no matter how strong the physical genetic component (and I believe that there is a very strong genetic component of predisposition to it, though such predisposition may be exacerbated by social forces found in a community environment) is still a behaviour acted out in a community; whether or not someone has a genetic predisposition to behave in these ways within a community is quite irrelevant, for we constantly regulate social behaviour no matter what the cause. Many more males have a genetic propensity towards violence than to homosexuality, after all, but we regard only those who have mastered those tendencies as adults. It seems to me to be infantalizing and in fact downright insulting to suggest that because homosexuals are "born that way" that they are incapable of controlling their actions and acting on willpower alone. Someone's race or gender, on the other hand, is a physical attribute which is utterly undetermined by the actions and behaviour of the person (except through artificial physical modification, though of course this begs the question of whether or not using willpower to alter the physical manifestations of your sexual orientation might not also be considered "artificial") and thus unrelated.
I think there's a fundamental disconnect between those on the traditional marriage side and those on the gay marriage side, and that is this: those of the traditional marriage side are more directly cognizant of the reproductive processes involved in a way that homosexual couples or couples not planning on having children are obviously not privy to. In this sense, the traditionalists hold gender and sexuality to be entwined with birth and the raising of children in a way that homosexuals don't. Instead, gay people are in it entirely for the love. They're attempting to redefine the traditional meaning of the physical and emotional acts they perform in their relationship to gain the social recognition and legitimacy as having equal standing as the physical and emotional acts performed in a heterosexual marriage. Because they see marriage to mean the union of any two people (and thus equal in form to traditional marriage), regardless of sex, into a committed, loving relationship, a "meeting of the minds" so to speak, then they're obviously frustrated that they shouldn't be allowed to. It's fundamentally unfair and irrelevant, in this view, when people say to them: "Look, you have the exact same rights that anyone else does, no one is barring you from anything; no one is stopping you from forming a union with a member of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is defined as being. No one is asking you to prove your heterosexuality; there is absolutely nothing standing in the way of you getting a marriage except your ability to find someone of the opposite sex willing to marry you." (this point is widely derided as being self-refutingly inaccurate, but it is in fact a legitimate argument; it merely depends on a definition that not everyone subscribes to) This is unfair from the homosexual point of view because it seemingly does not apply to anyone except, in effect, to exclude them; they've defined marriage as being completely about love, and not about what gender the person is. In the end, I think it really does come down to an argument over the definition: a union based wholly on love or love with gender and/or the goal of reproduction in the future entwined.
In effect, the gay marriage supporters are lobbying to change the traditional meaning of the word marriage from the relationship of the reproductive unit that the sexual security civil society is based upon to mean any two people based on how much they love each other. I hear talk of how giving people the same benefits of marriage to homosexual couples will encourage more commitment in society in general, as homosexuals are given societal approval of their relationship, but I think this is merely confusing the issue. People talk as if the opponents of same-sex marriage are opposed to this commitment itself, when that is rather what they are trying to uphold -- though their opinion differs in what their view of the socially-responsible expression of that value is. I've heard people ask honest questions (or sometimes sneeringly rhetorical ones) to the effect of: "Why don't you think our relationship, our commitment, is beautiful and worthy of praise and honor?" but this is throwing the actual criticism aside (though of course we must allow for those few people who genuinely are homophobic bigots). The fact that the two states that allow homosexual marriage are those with the lowest divorce rates is unrelated, because of course true commitment is beautiful, of course the love between homosexuals is a huge bonding force between them, of course seeing the actual peaceful commitment between two people would be a positive force, just as seeing examples of true friendship among heterosexuals is beneficial for children to observe and practice in peaceful civil society. Of course the adult emotions and intricately complex relationships homosexuals develop are at least as important to them as heterosexual relationships are to straight people. Everyone is human and everyone's emotions should be taken into account. That is not the issue, and people (on both sides) who try to argue from this tack are misdirecting the argument away from the main thrust, which is or should be this: does society have anything to gain by giving exactly equivalent treatment to a group of people with absolutely no possible reproductive stake in civil society, who do not even conform to the same gender-distribution (and consequent rule-set conceptual support) that infertile or otherwise non-reproductive couples do? The argument is not (or should not) be about whether or not homosexuals are, as a group, "evil"; they're quite obviously not. The real question is: why do homosexuals believe they have the right to equivalent benefits, when their relationship is not the one we have defined as being of the type eligible for receiving those benefits and social approbation in the first place? It's like a person who is not handicapped feeling short-shrifted because they're not allowed to park in a handicapped space. Personally, I think a rather large number of the benefits that are given to married people should not be twined in the legality of marriage at all; visiting sickbeds, for instance -- it seems to me that there are many tweaks that need to be made in the system to individualize it in better ways than we have in the past (though that in itself is a hugely hairy problem; the question of who "automatically" gets certain rights is almost debilitatingly complex); there are too many horror stories of homosexuals whose partners -- sometimes the only ones they'd actually want to see in an emergency situation -- are denied access to hospital rooms, etc. However, there is a core of usefulness: society has a definite incentive to providing some special core benefits solely to the successfully stable reproductive unit, since it is only through successful cultural dissemination that stable, generationally-continuous society exists at all, and heterosexual marriage is arguably the most effective form of transmitting those learned gender roles (which are far more necessary and subtle than those who argue against such "stifling" or "oppressive" ideas might claim). Society has a huge stake in marriage, which is why I've veered away from the "government should give civil unions to whomever" view I've held in the past.
Why should society change the definition of marriage in order to include a group of people who simply don't fit it? For I believe it is in fact a change of definition, a renaming; just as we've seen the word "family" come to mean any group of people who love each other rather than the actual blood relationships of people....what, in the end, is the point? What is gained? People have a longing for the intimacy, the closeness that should come from the blood relationship (not to mention the biological drive inherent in any successful animal species towards having a strong bloodline and kin), and so they have their "families of choice", etc. but I don't think that renaming other types of relationships actually fulfills that deeper longing. What is wrong with simply naming these people as we have traditionally named them, "deeply close friends", in other words, "members of the community with whom I am tightly bonded through shared experiences of important life events"? Why are these terms less important, less worthy? What is lost by not calling these people by the "family" name, except the ability to not have to come to terms with one's hardships? I believe that nothing is gained except a muddling of terms, as well as a devaluing of close friendships (or, as I argue similarly, marriage) because of the blurred terms (however well- or un- intended it might be). If a term can mean anything, then it means nothing.
Anyway. That was, as usual for me, very very long, so I'm sorry for any narcoleptic effects that might have resulted from reading it. I do hope, however, that it was taken in the spirit it was intended, and that it contributes a little something to the civil discussion going on.
[ December 26, 2006, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Sugar, if you haven't read or otherwise learned about the other options, how can you make claims about them? That doesn't make sense.
CT, are you or your mom from the South?
I love it when women I don't really know say that to me, but so few do that these days. About the only place left where I can get a good 'Sugar' is at the Waffle House.
(Note, this is not my backhanded way of asking to be addressed as such on this forum. I'm just making an observation.)
I think it's the persisting flavor of 4 years in the Heart of Dixie (Birmingham, AL) that comes out at times. Since that was where I first studied philosophy, perhaps there is a connection to context as well.
It could come across as condescending, though (and perhaps objectively is), so I'll try to watch it.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:The real question is: why do homosexuals believe they have the right to equivalent benefits, when their relationship is not the one we have defined as being of the type eligible for receiving those benefits and social approbation in the first place?
The answer lies in the fundamental difference between how gays view marriage and how you view marriage, in that, as you said, it's viewed as a union of love and not one made solely for reproduction.
If we went simply by making marriage about reproduction, wouldn't it then be prudent to bar heterosexual people too from marrying if they do so only for love and don't wish to have a child? (If you already answered this question, forgive me; I couldn't read all of your post, my brain's too tired to take it all in.)
The answer to your question will vary from person to person. I see us heading down a road to a split, in which homosexuals either gain a lot of ground and gain civil unions, or loose a lot of ground and become treated like second-class human beings. Most probably don't share my dismal view of the future, but I feel that no good can come from denying rights to a worthy minority. When has that ever been good in the long run? I just want to be treated like a human. You can call it whatever the heck you want: I just want the basic rights to make life possible.
Besides, with the world hurtling towards an unsustainable amount of people, we will have to begin rethinking the archaic encouragement of vast reproduction.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Well, for starters, I don't agree that anything I said implied that I was in favor of hurtling towards an unsustainable amount of people by encouraging vast reproduction. *grin*
I probably wasn't as clear as I could have been in my post, so I should make it explicit and mention that I don't think it's a fair summation of my position to describe it as being solely about reproduction. Rather, to my mind, love can be and usually is just as important in a kind of intertwined and inextricable way as having children is to the reproductively active couple.
I mean, I doubt when I'm feeling romantic I'm going to go up to my wife and say "Heya sweetcheeks, let's do the nasty and replicate us some DNA!" (Well, I might, but it'd probably be as a joke. Obviously, this hypothetical spouse of mine is a woman of great tolerance for unromantic weirdness. *grin*)
Basically, what I'm trying to get as is...well, let me try an analogy. Say we have an activity, painting, that many people do for very different reasons. Some people enjoy the colors, some enjoy the feel of the brush in their hands, some hate the process but love the finished results, etc. Now, no matter what their reasons are for painting, no matter how they actually go about putting ink on paper, no matter if they're even aware that they're making art or intend anything artistic by it, we can still group their activities as being within the 'painting' category.
Now, say someone else enjoys, oh, building their own computers out of spare parts they have lying around from other projects. Now, this activity might very well be exactly as or even more fulfilling, more meaningful, and more important in their lives than painting ever could be.
We would still be incorrect to call it painting, because if we did so, we'd be so far from the definition of "applying ink to paper" that the term would become meaningless and we'd need to find another way to denote the differences between the two activities. For people who share my view, the possibility for reproduction is an essential and indeed intrinsic aspect of what "marriage" means; redefining it would remove what makes it different from other types of relationships, no matter how similar and worthy they might be in terms of loyalty or romance, etc. It would be like calling "building a computer" "painting".
In other words, many aspects of your objections stem from the fact that you've already defined marriage a certain way, and are criticizing the opposite side's views as if they subscribed to that same definition. "Gaining ground" and "losing ground" both depend on the idea that their is ground to be gained or lost. Saying that homosexuals who are unable to be married are therefore being treated as inhuman "second-class citizens" who are being "denied rights" in a "dismal future" depends on the definition of marriage as being something other than a man and woman.
Thing is, I don't know how to reconcile the two views, the different definitions. I'll think about it. We need to hit some sort of workable compromise, because I see so many people becoming deeply divided about this issue.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Zotto!, I read your entire post (the long one). To me, you do an awful lot of talking around the pro-SSM points, but don't really address them at all. The most salient part of your post seems to be the following:
quote:Why should society change the definition of marriage in order to include a group of people who simply don't fit it? For I believe it is in fact a change of definition, a renaming;
You basically reiterate this in your post immediately above with your "painting" metaphor. The problem with this metaphor is that you place far too much difference between gay and straight relationships than is warranted. You're arguing that "painting" is "straight marriage" therefore anything that isn't strictly "straight marriage" is "building a computer" or "something else". That's a semantic game with very little illustrative value. To me the metaphor is much more like this: People for thousands of years have been putting paint on surfaces and calling it painting. Painting was mostly used to create representations of universally identifiable objects. From cave paintings of animals to human figures in the Sistine Chapel to still-lifes and landscapes of all types still painted today, "painting" served the purpose of representing all manner of visuably recognizable objects. However, along comes Pollock, Modrian, and Rothko (et. al.) and suddenly to the traditionalists the definition of "painting" now necessarily requires that the result be a recognizable object. What these newcomers do isn't "painting" at all because the result isn't identifiable as anything concrete. They want to call it "abstract painting" but that's a misnomer because "painting" necessarily forbids the end result to be "abstract". "But we're putting paint on canvass, just like the great painters of the past", the abstractionists claim, "so clearly we are 'painting'". But this logic doesn't allow the traditionalists to maintain whatever motives they have - collectively called "protection of 'painting'" - so it is summarily rejected in a semantic game.
The reality of the situation is that "marriage" already includes the simple concept of the "joining of two otherwise separate things". It is used this way all the time. We talk of the "marriage of religion and politics", or even being "married to one's work". Now, I'm not arguing that "marriage" doesn't usually imply "man and woman", only that it has seldom, if ever, exclusively meant that.
As far as legal rights go, part of the reason same-sex marriage has gotten as far as it has is that the legal definition of "marriage" has not been uniform and unambiguous in regards to the gender of the participants. At least a few states never explicitly required the participants to be of opposite gender until this very decade, when many of them passed laws enshrining the more narrow legal definition.
While Chris and I are not legally married, what we have is a "marriage" nonetheless. And I object to the generality that to gays "marriage" is "only about love". To most gays, it's much more about commitment and protection. See, we already have the love. Stamping "marriage" on it doesn't make love appear, nor does withholding the stamp make it go away. What legal "marriage" does do is help strengthen the relationship, and require that it be recognized by other parties. And that's the real crux of the arguement. Certain people simply don't want to have to recognize homosexual unions as "marriage". Some recognize the legitimate claims of homosexual couples and thus are willing to allow "civil unions". Others aren't willing to allow for either. I'm not going speculate here why these camps feel this way since much of this has been addressed elsewhere in this thread. But I will be glad to address any that they care to articulate.
I will say this, though: There are gay couples today with children, and denying them the legal protections of marriage does very real and demonstrable harm*. The opposition has yet to come up with anything remotely as concrete as this fact to support their denial of these protections, although many will offer the "solution" of denying parenting rights to gays altogether.
*this harm being largely the same as would happen if denying the protections of legal marriage to straight couples with children.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:At least a few states never explicitly required the participants to be of opposite gender until this very decade
I think this actually weakens your point. The law is replete with examples of a single word conveying much meaning that is not explicitly stated. There is little doubt that the consensus opinion of the law was that marriage involved a husband and a wife.
Explicitness is needed when the single word is no longer descriptive enough. It was the attempt to change the understood meaning of the word that led to the explicitness.
quote:The reality of the situation is that "marriage" already includes the simple concept of the "joining of two otherwise separate things". It is used this way all the time. We talk of the "marriage of religion and politics", or even being "married to one's work". Now, I'm not arguing that "marriage" doesn't usually imply "man and woman", only that it has seldom, if ever, exclusively meant that.
Metaphorical meaning - and that's what "marriage of religion and politics" and "married to one's work" are - is not really a valid way to demonstrate the actual meaning of a word. For example, we say someone who overgeneralizes about a population "paints with a broad brush." But we don't think that the description of common attributes of a population is actually painting.
Now, that doesn't answer the question "Is gender an inherent part of marriage?" But it does mean that the use of "marriage" metaphorically in other situations doesn't actually demonstrate that a marriage is simply the joining of two different things. It means we've used the word metaphorically to emphasize one central concept of marriage - joining - in situations where the literal meaning of the word doesn't apply.
You're not trying to assert that you and Chris are married in the same way that religion and politics are married in the Christian Coalition or workaholics are married to their work. You are asserting that you and Chris are married in the same way (ignoring legalities) that any husband and wife are married.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
That is a good point, Dag. However, I do think it is important that the metaphoric use of the word almost exclusively emphasizes the joining of two separate things, not whether they are separate genders. I think this is illustrative that "joining" and "commitment are the central ideas. Gender is unimportant in the metaphorical sense. Everyone understands "marriage" between religion and politics and no one asks which is the man and which is the woman.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:WASHINGTON — The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which interprets religious law for the Conservative movement of Judaism, ruled today to allow both commitment ceremonies for same-sex couples and the ordination of gay and lesbian rabbis.
Of course, I suspect Lisa and/or Rivka will enlighten us to the effect that this has nothing to do with Orthodox Judaism (I don't know whether it does or not), but I still think it's a pretty "major victory for gay rights advocates".
quote:A recent poll from Zogby International and the Michael D Palm Center shows that US military personnel are increasingly at ease serving with openly gay colleagues. The poll reveals that 73 percent of military members aren't bothered by lesbians and gays. Nearly one in four (23 percent) service members report knowing for sure that someone in their unit is lesbian or gay, including 21 percent of those in combat units.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Zotto, let me say excellent posts.
You pointed out your ideas, your beliefs, and did so in a very understandable and non-threatening way. You encourage debate, not try to shout it down. Thank you.
Now for the debate:
You say that the major reason you do not believe homosexual monogamus unions should not be called marriage is that marriage represents monogamus unions where children are created.
I am a heterosexual male happilly married to my wife of 17 years. Do to problems of her anatomy, we are unable to have children.
Are we married?
Is it our responsibility to end this mistaken marriage, for we are gaining state benefits from our union without fulfilling our end of the contract?
If I knew that children would not be possible from this coupling, should I have not gotten married?
Can infertile couples join the homosexual couples in writing off marriage from our destinies?
Is it my responsibility to leave her and find a more fertile mate?
We have chosen to adopt, which is what many of what I call, "Noahans" (Christian literalists who take thier position from where God told Noah, "Go forth and multiply) say is our way around the "No Child/No Marriage" idea.
Why can't homosexuals also take that route as well?
In other words, what is the difference between a heterosexual infertile couple and a homosexual couple?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: In other interesting news:
Of course, I suspect Lisa and/or Rivka will enlighten us to the effect that this has nothing to do with Orthodox Judaism (I don't know whether it does or not), but I still think it's a pretty "major victory for gay rights advocates".
Yes, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Judaism. The Conservative movement does what it does based primarily on what its members want. What God wants is generally a pretty distant second place.
That said, I don't think any of their rabbis are actually rabbis, so I don't much care if they ordain hamsters.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Yes, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Judaism. "
Hrm. It has quite a bit to do with judaism. Just not the judaism you practice.
I believe that papa janitor already expressed his position that you can't do this, lisa.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Zotto!: Thanks for stating everything as respectfully as possible. It makes debating less venomous.
quote:Now, say someone else enjoys, oh, building their own computers out of spare parts they have lying around from other projects. Now, this activity might very well be exactly as or even more fulfilling, more meaningful, and more important in their lives than painting ever could be.
As you keep stating there is a difference of opinion on what marriage is. Because of your view that marriage is based on a loving relationship with a built-in, socially-acceptable environment for rearing children, you feel that anything else is "building a computer." However, because I do not share this view, I do not see that this analogy fits at all. I agree with KarlEd's analogy much more: gay couples aren't doing something radically different. The only distinction is the gender of person of that couple. That doesn't change the fact that they are a loving couple that may wish to become a family by adopting a child or having one genetically created.
quote:In other words, many aspects of your objections stem from the fact that you've already defined marriage a certain way, and are criticizing the opposite side's views as if they subscribed to that same definition.
Are you not doing the same thing? You have your definition of what a marriage is, and I have mine; we're both disagreeing with how the other side views it.
quote:Gaining ground" and "losing ground" both depend on the idea that their is ground to be gained or lost.
But there is. Not just in marriage, but in the entire social equality spectrum. Gays have gained a lot since the 60s. They are now a much more acceptable group, are protected legally, and can now have sex without being arrested. However, if you think things are equal, they're not. Gay hate crimes are still higher than they should be. And having this distinction between straight couples and gay couples could very well be causing it. It reinforces the idea of separating, rather than integrating, gays from society.
quote:Saying that homosexuals who are unable to be married are therefore being treated as inhuman "second-class citizens" who are being "denied rights" in a "dismal future" depends on the definition of marriage as being something other than a man and woman.
My fears go much deeper than just marriage being denied. If two gay men can't have the legal right to marry, then why should their sexual habits be protected?
I daresay I hope they never learn what causes homosexuality. Because if it's genetic, they will eventually find the gene. And what's to stop groups such as Focus on the Family from creating an initiative to genetically "switch off" the gay gene for anyone who wishes to make sure their kids aren't gay?
quote:Thing is, I don't know how to reconcile the two views, the different definitions. I'll think about it. We need to hit some sort of workable compromise, because I see so many people becoming deeply divided about this issue.
I agree; I think you'll even find that most gays would settle for civil unions if they were granted most or all of the same rights. Because people like you who disagree on what a marriage is can call it whatever the heck you want and say my marriage is not a "true" marriage, but I know that, in my heart, and in my beliefs, it is. And nothing people try to legislate will ever stop me from saying so.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: It seems to me to be infantalizing and in fact downright insulting to suggest that because homosexuals are "born that way" that they are incapable of controlling their actions and acting on willpower alone.
Here you suggest that homosexuals learn to "control their actions" and not express homosexual urges. This suggestion is predicated presumably on the assumption that homosexual urges are harmful and should be controlled.
The only evidence you've given for that is that you believe reproduction is vitally important, to the extent that it should be the primary purpose of modern marriage. This is an assertion that I do not grant, and which renders much of your analogy meaningless to me, but I'll accept it tentatively in order to explore the ramifications of that belief.
Do you, as a consequence, believe that non-reproductive marriages -- like Slash's (but not like Dan's, since he and his wife are now raising adopted children) -- are fruitless or lack merit? Moreover, do you believe that homosexual behavior directly or indirectly suppresses reproductive behavior to the point that we as a culture need to counteract that impulse, to keep our population up?
If the answer to both those questions is "no," under what rationale would you deny marriage to a group in order to ensure that marriage remains a promotional tool for "optimal" reproductive behavior, given that "optimal" marriages are clearly in the minority in modern society anyway?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I agree; I think you'll even find that most gays would settle for civil unions if they were granted most or all of the same rights. Because people like you who disagree on what a marriage is can call it whatever the heck you want and say my marriage is not a "true" marriage, but I know that, in my heart, and in my beliefs, it is. And nothing people try to legislate will ever stop me from saying so.
I'll settle for "civil unions" as long as they are legally indistinguishable from "marriage" except in name because as I've already pointed out, we already have free use of the word in all except the legal arena. Gays already can be married in many religious ceremonies (including those of "Conservative Judaism" as linked above), and no one can stop me from calling my relationship with Chris a "marriage" or (once we're legally "civily unionized") even telling people we're "married" and even "legally married" since "civily unionized" will be exactly the same thing. The natural evolution of language is on my side.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Tom, may I add, what actions in particular should they be refraining from?
If two men or two women fall in love, must they refrain from "sexual intercourse" only, or must they also refrain from things like public kissing, dancing, playing footsie under the table? Are non-sexual things such as holding hands, friendly hugs, longing glances across crowded rooms to be forbidden?
Where does Honesty come in? There is a lot to be said for honesty, in civil society and in theology. Most are far it. Yet if we deny the physical manifestations of what is in our hearts, are we being dishonest?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'll settle for "civil unions" as long as they are legally indistinguishable from "marriage" except in name because as I've already pointed out, we already have free use of the word in all except the legal arena.
I think that if civil unions are enacted in all 50 states and the district, this will be true. In each place that has enacted them this is true - on the state level only, and within those states only, of course.
At the federal level and in the other states, even Massachusetts's version is unrecognized.
So there is no discernible difference right now between civil unions and same sex civil marriages, but neither is legally indistinguishable from marriage.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Which is primarily why I think "civil unions" as they are currently being implemented is not an adequate compromise. As fluid as our society is, and as common as it is to live in one state and work in another, not having the portability "marriage" has makes "civil unions" separate and un-equal, and therefore inadequate to address the equal rights concerns.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Civil same-sex marriage alone isn't adequate, either, though. That's my point. Each as currently implemented suffers from the exact same flaw.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Is there a reason it isn't, inherently, or is this only because the only place where it exists (Mass) has implemented it this way? I mean, "civil same-sex marriage" as a concept isn't necessarily the same as "civil same-sex marriage as currently implemented by Massechusetts", or is it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the government should get out of the business of issuing sacraments and the Church should get out of the business of endorsing contracts. This is leftover from a time when the Church held temporal or secular authority and has no place in this country.
And, Resh, honey, please when referring to "Christian values" bear in mind that not all Christians have the same idea of what constitutes those values.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is there a reason it isn't, inherently, or is this only because the only place where it exists (Mass) has implemented it this way? I mean, "civil same-sex marriage" as a concept isn't necessarily the same as "civil same-sex marriage as currently implemented by Massechusetts", or is it?
All three statutes civil union statutes* (VT, CT, and NJ, right?) specifically and explicitly make civil unions exactly the same as marriage except for the name and the genders, and instruct the courts to apply precedent the same (presumably, any gender-specific precedent that might still be valid will have to be adjusted, but there's very little if any left).
Massachusetts also applies the existing marriage law to same sex couples (and presumably the same type of adjustments to gender-specific precedent will be required).
All the existing limitations of these entities arise from two facts: 1) Other states don't recognize them and don't have to under federal law, and 2) The federal government doesn't recognize them.
Neither of those facts is at all related to how the states have implemented same-sex marriage and civil unions. I'm hard pressed to think of anything any of those states could have done to make the application of the statutes more equal.
So, no, I don't think the problems arise from how any of the states have implemented it. They arise from how other sovereign entities have not.
*I know this to be true for VT by having studied the statutes and the cases. I am relying on often-faulty media accounts for the other two.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
*curious clarification* So does that mean that a gay couple married in Massachussets can file taxes as a couple on the state level, but still have to file separately for federal income tax?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes.
And if they move to a new state (or work in a state with commuter taxes) they have to file separately there, too.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Dag, if you would, I'm still interested in the distinction you see between "Harm cannot be good without redefining what it is", and an absolute morality. I must say I don't see how you separate the two.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm hard pressed to think of anything any of those states could have done to make the application of the statutes more equal.
I can think of one thing, but I didn't (and don't) expect it.
The states could simply refuse to recognize consular and other state marriages until theirs are recognized in return.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, if you would, I'm still interested in the distinction you see between "Harm cannot be good without redefining what it is", and an absolute morality. I must say I don't see how you separate the two.
Going back to the last post of yours that I responded to, I think there's a difference between God "decreeing" something and God creating something such that something else is true. And I'm not really sure I can explain it to you beyond that, unfortunately. But the difference is significant.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: Gays already can be married in many religious ceremonies (including those of "Conservative Judaism" as linked above),
Actually, all they said was that Conservative rabbis can officiate at commitment ceremonies. They still have no such thing as same-sex marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I can think of one thing, but I didn't (and don't) expect it.
The states could simply refuse to recognize consular and other state marriages until theirs are recognized in return.
They could have, but it wouldn't have worked. They'd have been overturned in a heartbeat (or as much of a heartbeat as these kinds of court cases ever are).
You're right that they could have tried, though.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that the government should get out of the business of issuing sacraments and the Church should get out of the business of endorsing contracts.
Exactly. Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
First off, I should apologize to KarlEd for my generalization of homosexual marriage as being solely "about love". Although I do think that my support for the statement at least implied that I was thinking of the aspects of loyalty and protection you're concerned about and are inherent for me in "love", that was just downright sloppy of me. I was, ah, painting with too broad a brush, if you'll forgive the pun. I certainly did not mean to imply that stamping a label on the relationship makes love appear or that taking the stamp away gets rid of the love as well, and I do not believe that such an interpretation is warranted.
Speaking of brushes, though, I still disagree with your argument. KarlEd, you say that:
quote:"The problem with this metaphor is that you place far too much difference between gay and straight relationships than is warranted.
And that's the whole crux of it, really. My long spiel was an attempt to explicate the reasons why I believe that gay relationships are different in kind than straight relationships and do in fact warrant an appropriate amount of recognition of that difference, in much the same way that we would not denote the relationship between a father and son as being exactly the same as the relationship between a mother and daughter, no matter how similar they are in terms of love and devotion and loyalty, etc.
I agree with Dagonee's post about the metaphorical use of the word "marriage".
Dan-raven: Thanks for the kind words.
I believe that you and your wife are indeed married, but then, I already think that marriage is something done between a man and a woman. As I said before, people have very different ideas of what they're doing when they enter into a marriage: some are in it solely for the recognition of love, and the resulting loyalty and protection inherent in agreeing to remove both people from the reproductive pool. Some people are in it in order to have children, etc etc. No matter what their reasons, or how well they "conform" to some ideal, they're still acting within that sphere of behavior that we've termed "marriage". I'm really at a loss to explain even more than I attempted to in that giant post what the difference between gay couples and infertile or otherwise non-reproductive couples is; that is, I think that the rule-set conceptual support is upheld in society whether or not the heterosexual couple actually has children for whatever reason, and it's still of the same type of relationship as a fertile or reproductively active couple. I don't know how to make it any clearer, but I'll think about it and see what I can come up with. I know it's a hard concept to get; I used to hold the opposite view, and it took me years to wrap my head around what I'm trying (unsuccessfully, it appears) to explain.
Hitoshi: Thank you for the kind words as well. It frustrates me that this issue is so heated that my "lack of venom" is unusual enough to be commented on.
You asserted that I was doing the same thing as you when I disagreed with how your "side" defined marriage, which was exactly my point.
What I'm trying to get at is that both sides are using the terms as if the other side believed in their definitions, and my big post was an attempt to show why I think that one side's definition is the more accurate one. You hold that the genders of the people in a marriage is not a radically different thing between heterosexual and homosexual relationships, but this is still using your definition of what is or is not radical. I do the same thing, of course, in my ginormous post trying to explain why it is indeed radically different. The problem is how to get both sides to agree on the definition beforehand, which is, again, one of the major points of my precis.
I also disagree that the distinction between straight and gay marriage is the sole cause of violence against homosexuals, though of course there are bigots in any population who will use whatever excuse they can get their hands on to act violently against a group who seems "different" no matter how harmless they might be. Rather, I think that the concept of gays being a separate type of person, an Other, an unknowable and fearful thing, that is the cause of violence against homosexuals. As I said before, I believe that such violence is far more dangerous and anti-communitarian than anything homosexuals do, and there is absolutely no excuse for it. But it doesn't have to do entirely with being "equal", it has to do with people letting their fear or hatred of differences turn into violence. I believe that blacks and other racial minorities are equal to whites, but there are still a disturbingly large number of hate crimes committed against them.
Tom: I don't think that gay actions are "harmful" to individuals (though it is possible for an individual to be harmed in them, in much the same way that an individual might be harmed by inappropriate heterosexual activity) or sinful or whatever. What I'm saying is that if a homosexual person wants to be married and subscribe to the traditional definition of marriage, it's not impossible for them to control their natural desires and act within that sphere we've defined as marriage. I think it's infantalizing and insulting to suggest, as many people do, that homosexuals are incapable of doing this merely because it would in most cases be extremely hard. You're coming at this from an entirely different angle than I was going for. I've said over and over that I don't grant that reproduction should be the sole purpose of modern marriage; I think you are putting far too many words in my mouth. Rather, I think that the possibility for reproduction is one of the ways that make heterosexual marriage different in kind than homosexual marriage, and not a completely indistinguishable concept deserving of exactly equivalent benefits.
As I said before to Dan, I don't think that I'm actually saying some of the rather vile things you think I'm saying. While I rather dislike discussing the status of someone else's relationship without their consensual participation, I believe that Slash's and Dan's marriages are fruitful and have much merit, and can indeed be called marriages because they're still acting within the bounds of the traditional definition. I think homosexual relationships can be just as loving, loyal, and important to those within them. What I do not agree with is the assumption that they are exactly equivalent relationships, deserving of the exact same benefits as heterosexual marriages. It has nothing to do with some supposed suppression of individual heterosexual reproductive behavior, nor with "counteracting" the impulse towards homosexuality, unless the individual homosexual wishes to take part in marriage. What would be counteracted would be the drawing of equivalencies, the assumption that homosexuals are automatically, unquestionably deserving of utterly identical treatment.
As I've tried to explain before, I disagree with the idea that people are being "denied" anything, since that assumes they had the right to it in the first place. I don't understand what you mean by saying that "optimal" marriages are "clearly" in the minority in modern society; if you mean that not everyone has kids or is a perfect spouse, then of course I'd agree, but I don't think such relationships are in the minority at all, nor do I think that changing the definition of marriage would do anything to counteract such things and would indeed do harm, in that the line between different relationships would become blurred to the point of meaninglessness.
Phew. My brain hurts now. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Zotto, one thing I would reiterate is that the definition of "marriage" has changed many, many times. It is not a static thing. And it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone even at the same time.
"Marriage" has meant a contract with a father to basically purchase a daughter who was chattel. It has meant buying more than one woman. It has meant a liason for producing heirs and political alliances. Royalty was often "married" almost at birth. None of these are how most of us would define marriage now, but even these days it run the spectrum. We have marriages that last about as long as the publicity, marriages for convenience, open marriages, marriages for money...
All of them are different relationships. In my opinion a loving, committed realtionship between two men or two women is a lot closer to my "ideal" of marriage than anything that Britany Spears has done recently.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: As I've tried to explain before, I disagree with the idea that people are being "denied" anything, since that assumes they had the right to it in the first place.
In a society that gives perks to people who are married, denying that to same sex couples is absolutely a denial of something they are entitled to.
That said, government should get out of the marriage biz altogether. But to the extent that they haven't, they're obligated to be equitable about it, and that requires same-sex marriage rights.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I deeply disagree, and I believe that view stretches and muddles what entitle means.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I have posted this analogy before, but I think it’s a more helpful one than either version of the painting one, so I’ll do it again.
Some folks think that men are oxygen molecules and women are carbon molecules and marriage is CO, requiring one of each. Other folks think humans are all oxygen molecules and marriage is O2, just requiring two people. The first group thinks the second group is trying to make CO with two oxygen or two carbon and can’t see why that won’t work and the second group thinks the first group is trying to put irrelevant restrictions on what kind of oxygen molecules are used to make stable oxygen.
They're both right and the other side "just doesn't get it" if you accept their basic assumptions about gender and marriage.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
(edit: this was to Kate, before all ye nimble-fingered ones jumped in ahead o' me)
As I mentioned before, I understand the huge variety of reasoning behind marriages in different cultures and times, and I agree with most of your post, especially the Spears part *grin*. (If anything, I think the extreme contempt that hyper-prominent people like Spears or Clinton or whomever show towards the idea that marriage means voluntarily removing yourself from the reproductive pool is far more harmful and influential to the idea of marriage, since it means a whole heck of a lot of people think that "everybody does it")
However, as I mentioned many times, no matter what the reasons for the marriages in the past, it was almost always predicated on the assumption that the reproductively viable heterosexual couple was the basis for the marriage. In other words, the father was depending on the fact that his daughter was of reproductively relevant stock, harems of either gender were at least partly based on the assumption that some of them would produce children, the political liasons were only effective because they represented reproductive opportunity, no matter what the rhetorical reasons for the marriage might be.
None of these would, for me, be anything even close to an "ideal" marriage (some would be downright horrific), and things have indeed changed in many complex ways. But the core social institution was still based on male-female.
There are many, many cultures that have tolerated relatively to extremely open homosexuality in the past and present, but in order to call such relationships "marriage" is to preemptively define "marriage" as being something other than between a man and woman.
I mean, when the early primates were first learning to talk and name things, I'm sure they had a different word for "marriage" than we do now to describe the social institution surrounding the reproductive process. It's all translations, and I think that the traditional definition we have for the core social institution is different enough from the relationship between homosexuals that it is incorrect to describe them using the same word.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Zotto
If its not the actual producing of children that is the issue, (or non-productive heterosexual couples would be likewise unmarriable) and its not faith, and its not a dislike, distrust, or distaste of homosexuality that makes Tom and Jan able to marry, but Jane and Suzie not, then we must ask ourselves what is.
Could it be comfort, tradition, what you grew up with, that defines for you what is allowed and what is not in a marriage?
Traditions change. What you grew up with does not, and can not be, what the next generation will grow up with. (Not that I'm saying that Gay Marriage will win out right now, but that too many things change in a generation for one to assume it has had the same experiences as the other)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But "reproductively viable" is no longer a necessary component of marriage.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'm willing to concede your definitional point currently, Zotto, but I don't see were you've successfully argued that the legal form should be restricted as a result. I find that these relationships can be legally equivalent, much like Hindu or Catholic or LDS or Jewish marriages are, despite their practical (and argued by adherents on all sides, spiritual) differences. The question isn't if there are differences between the relationships, but rather are the differences legally useful or important to distinguish in the law?
One aside, you made a point about possibly being able to engage in homosexual activity while being straight... As if that means anything beyond you (I mean this in a non-condescending way). You say that it's infantile to presume that gays can't follow the rules and responsibilities of traditional marriage, but I think it's just as infantile to assume they all can. Some will succeed, and perhaps even be happy; others will unhappily manage it, possibly inflicting pain on their family, knowingly or not. Some won't succeed. People are an interesting contortion of clay and stone, they exhibit a wide range of abilities and inabilities, I've found.
So it seems to me that you refuse to budge on a seeming linguistic principle, as if meanings of words, and even concepts haven't changed, aren't changing, and won't continue to change. I agree that on this point, KarlEd's view is going to be born out. But even if you are right, it only matters if the linguistic differences translate into something worth legislating as a legal difference, as I stated above. I don't think you've addressed this point; you've at best addressed why we could legislate differently, but you have yet outline why we should.
-Bok
PS- I went back now to read a bit more of your voluminous post, and what hits me are the number of assertions you make about a variety of things, all of which could be argued to a certain extent. Further, you seem to have a tendency to project your experience far beyond its realm. For instance, your very real experience of your parents' divorce. My parents also divorced... I was about 14 or so. I would say that the most you could say is that it has had perhaps a minor effect on, a mix of good and bad. I think it had a larger affect on my slightly-more-than-a-year-younger brother. Now I admit that I could have some serious repression; one could also look at my life's narrative and perhaps claim many instances where damage from my parents' divorce, and it would all seem perfectly reasonable, but I think that on the whole it would be wrong, that other experiences were larger influences.
I don't know what to make of this tendency, and you could be completely right about you... But I still think you need to be careful of the generalization of those experiences.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Well, Dan, if you were actually asking me what the issue is, I would have to say that it's certainly not the comfort of "tradition" or "what I grew up with" that defines marriage for me, since I as said before, I grew up in a family and faith that actively embrace homosexual marriage *grin*. While I don't subscribe to that faith any longer, I am still a part of that family, and if anything, I'm the one attempting to change the tradition and upset the comfort. (It's not out of reactionary rebelliousness, in other words, though I have that in spades too, but rather because I simply disagree)
If my previous ginormous posts are still not enough to adequately convey my thoughts on why the types of relationships are of different kinds, I don't know how else to put it. Dana's analogy is indeed far better than either of the painting ones, and though I've tried to explain why I think my molecule-combinations are the correct ones to label as "marriage", it's exceedingly complex to make it understood to someone who doesn't share the same premises. Sigh.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: You say that it's infantile to presume that gays can't follow the rules and responsibilities of traditional marriage, but I think it's just as infantile to assume they all can. Some will succeed, and perhaps even be happy; others will unhappily manage it, possibly inflicting pain on their family, knowingly or not. Some won't succeed. People are an interesting contortion of clay and stone, they exhibit a wide range of abilities and inabilities, I've found.
I agree with this. In addition, I find that Zotto!'s assertion almost completely misses the point of marriage, straight or gay. Zotto! isn't the first to state this, that gays can marry, just like anyone else, as long as they do it with someone of the opposite sex. It boggles my mind that anyone thinks this is an appropriate response. To me it comes across as demeaning and deliberately obtuse, but strangely I've heard it offered in all seriousness from some people whose arguements I otherwise respect. Do any of you really think that it's simply any old marriage that gays want and that they should therefore be satisfied with marriage to just anyone of the opposite sex "[i]if they can find someone of the opposite sex willing to marry them[i]"? Would you be happy in a situation where you were only able to marry from a pool of people with whom you were not sexualy or romantically compatible? Would you seriously find this a satisfying option? If not, can you see why I might find this suggestion beyond infantile? In fact, I find it almost as offensive as the idea that gays just "want to play house".
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Bok~
I don't know how to explain it any clearer than I have why I think there is indeed ample reason to differentiate between the two types of relationships in the law. (And I really, really hope that no one takes the cheap shot of thinking that such inadequecy of my language skills means that the conceptualization of the worldview I'm trying to explain isn't sound.)
The whole idea is that people on both sides are using the definitions they subscribe to without agreeing with the "other side's" version. In other words, I never once said that I wasn't doing exactly as Hitoshi was doing, and using the definition I've come to conclude is the correct one. What I'm saying is that so are you, and so is everyone. Of course there are a huge variety of things I'm asserting that are arguable; (we, and indeed the entire country, wouldn't be talking if that weren't so) and as I said in my first post, I'm sure there are numerous rational reasons and worldviews against my position. In other words, good people on either side can disagree.
I never said that it was unquestionably possible for every single gay person in existence to subsume their natural desires into the marriage story. I never implied that I was advocating that every one even try. I was trying to convey my frustration that a great many people don't seem to think it is possible at all. I can't recall very many in this thread, but as I said, I was going for a general precis, and I certainly encounter enough people with such views in my day-to-day to warrant the inclusion of my response. If your anecdotal evidence that there aren't many people with these views is valid, my anecdotal evidence that there are quite afew should be just as fair to mention. My point is that it's not fair for homosexuals to say that they're being deprived of marriage-rights when what they're really saying is that they don't conform to the definition, in much the same way that it's "unfair" that because I'm not disabled, I am not eligible to park in the stalls nearest the store. You say that you've found that "people are an interesting contortion of clay and stone, they exhibit a wide range of abilities and inabilities", as if I wasn't aware of that and didn't try to make my understanding explicit in my posts. Apparently I'm just too stubborn to budge on a mere linguistic issue. It should be clear from the aggregate total of my posts that it's not a "mere" linguistic issue, a "mere" growth or development of the language, it's a wide-ranging redefinition of what I believe to be an intrinsic part of the sexual security civil society depends on. I don't know how to say it other than to keep saying that, which is obviously not particularly effective at explaining my view.
In other words, I think you're projecting your own tendency for projection onto my views. *grin* I wasn't claiming that my experience with divorce was somehow universal; indeed, my younger brother seems far less affected than I was. Heck, of my two stepsisters, the oldest seemed far more affected by their father's (now my stepfather) divorce than the younger. Like every single person's position in this entire thread, it's not based entirely on reproducible scientific experimentation. There's room for argument. What I think you need to be careful of is assuming that I have a tendency towards generalizing experiences to apply to people I haven't said they apply to.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:If my previous ginormous posts are still not enough to adequately convey my thoughts on why the types of relationships are of different kinds, I don't know how else to put it.
I think it's clear why you think the way you do, but that doesn't mean that I find the arguements persuasive. I'll be the first to admit that there are many differences between gay and straight intimate relationships, however, I don't think the differences are in areas of legal import. If you think they are, I'd be interested in knowing which differences you think are of sufficient legal import as to deny the extension of marriage to include homosexual unions.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:I never said that it was unquestionably possible for every single gay person in existence to subsume their natural desires into the marriage story. I never implied that I was advocating that every one even try. I was trying to convey my frustration that a great many people don't seem to think it is possible at all.
I think it's a demonstrable fact that it is possible. It does not follow, however, that the resulting relationships are healthy or fulfilling for any of the people involved. Some may be, but I also know for a fact many are not.
Why should anyone be expected to even try to subsume their natural sexual orientation simply to fit another person's version of the "marriage story"? Why can they not be free to write their own stories? Why are those new stories not also worthy of the same protections under law?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Actually, even I don't think that my reasoning for "why I think the way I do" was made explicitly clear or persuasive enough (otherwise everyone'd be persuaded!), but neither do I think it's quite possible for either side to describe every single nuance of their position in mere agreed-upon words rather than a gradual apprehension of the aggregate totality of a conceptual worldview. As I said before, for a great deal of my life, I was quite cheerfully supportive of gay marriage, just as I was quite cheerfully supportive of abortion and tenets of my religion at the time and sexual politics, and on and on. Things change. *grin*
I actually think that while there are many, many differences between straight and gay intimate relationships, there are actually less differences than, say, a healthy father-son or mother-daughter relationship. Issues of sexuality, emotional compatibility, a whole range of other things that are not found in other relationships really can be quite similar between straight and gay intimate relationships.
The area of legal import is what you describe as being mind-bogglingly inappropriate; I believe that such relationships are of a different kind than straight relationships, and therefore just don't really qualify for equivalent benefits. It's dkw's analogy again, and I'm still trying to think of a clearer way to put it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Ok, I get that you don't think they are the same type of relationship. Perhaps you could explain concisely why you think that the one is deserving of legal status above and beyond the other. Is it simply reproductive differences? Because that's the gist of what I gathered from your monumental post above. If that's the primary difference, can you tell me why the de facto families comprised of gays with children are less worthy of legal protection and benefits than otherwise equivalent families where the parents are of opposite gender?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
It's not "simply" reproductive differences, and if that's the only impression that my novel-length post gave, I completely suck at communication.
There are a whole host of things that can't be boiled-down into one-liners or "gists". The "otherwise equivalent" families are not equivalent at all, because of the lack of mixed-genders. The learned sex-roles are a huge thing in my view, as are all the countless other things I mentioned in that huge post, that differentiate the types of relationships to such a degree that one deserves legal approbation for a secure, generationally-continuous society in which the relationships are not considered equivalent.
It's unfortunate that some people do not get the help and benefits that they could really use. I'd rather see a loving, supportive homosexual couple have sole custody of a child than a heterosexual couple who didn't want kids and is only tolerating them. There are many unfairnesses to some group no matter what the system, and no one community has a monopoly on what is and is not unfair. But you say "less worthy" as if I'm judging them to be inferior human beings. I'm not; I'm trying to say that I merely disagree that they have the right to those benefits.
I've been squeezing my brain to think of a better way to explain it, but no luck so far. I still appreciate talking about it, though, because the friction of the opposing viewpoint tends to bring more of my own position into light and solidify things.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:There are many unfairnesses to somegroup no matter what the system,
How would legalizing gay marriage be unfair to heterosexual couples?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't see where he said it would be unfair to heterosexual couples.
But it would still be unfair to siblings who live together late into adulthood and are raising a child. Or to Grandmother/Mother pairs raising children - a VERY common pattern in this country.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
It would be drawing an exact equivalency between the different types of relationships in which gender, reproduction, learned sex-roles, etc. etc, are inherently superfluous to the core social institution through the blurring of terms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, now I see where he said it.
My second paragraph is still relevant, though.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Zotto!: It would be drawing an exact equivalency between the different types of relationships in which gender, reproduction, learned sex-roles, etc. etc, are inherently superfluous to the core social institution through the blurring of terms.
Of course it would be. How is that unfair?
---
Dag, I agree, and would love to see some sort of legislated family compact for raising children that would give those family groupings similar rights. Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Because we'd be essentially erasing the differences between the two relationships and saying that one is exactly as deserving of special benefits as the other. I've already listed to the best of my ability the reasons why I think it actually is necessary for benefits to be given solely to heterosexuals. It's much the same as if we were to agree that people who are not disabled have the exact same right to the best parking stalls as the truly disabled. It's unfair because they don't fit the definition of what we've agreed "disabled" means.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's much the same as if we were to agree that people who are not disabled have the exact same right to the best parking stalls as the truly disabled.
The problem with this analogy is that the best parking stalls are a limited commodity. The benefits of marriage are not.
Edit:
quote:It's unfair because they don't fit the definition of what we've agreed "disabled" means.
No, it's unfair because disabled people wouldn't have the accommodations needed, because of the limited number of close in parking stalls.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Hmm. True. *chews*
Edit: And your edit is also true. *keeps chewing*
[ December 27, 2006, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Rather, I think that the concept of gays being a separate type of person, an Other, an unknowable and fearful thing, that is the cause of violence against homosexuals.
When you say with a grin that things change, that you've evolved from someone who once saw no difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships, what you're saying with a grin is -- as far as I'm concerned -- that you've concluded that gays are a separate type of person.
quote:I've already listed to the best of my ability the reasons why I think it actually is necessary for benefits to be given solely to heterosexuals.
Zotto, I'm afraid that I found this attempt extremely unsatisfying. You don't believe that reproduction in this country will suddenly stop; do you believe that homosexual couples will adopt in such numbers that traditional sex roles will vanish, and do so suddenly enough to be harmful to society?
As far as I can tell, those are the only two negative consequences you explicitly listed, and you've already admitted that you don't think one of them is really a problem.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Sigh. Well, "as far as I'm concerned", you'd be wrong, then, Tom. I think homosexuals have different types of qualities than other people, sure, just as heterosexuals are different from them, just as everyone is a little different from everyone else. Being different is not a bad thing; I'm certainly strange enough that most people would classify me as being "different" in many ways.
(And seriously, dude, you of all people found the grin at the end of a one-liner to be inappropriate? *grin*)
I'm afraid that I find your attempts at summations of my view to be extremely unsatisfying. I never said that sex roles would vanish and people would suddenly stop making ankle-biters; I did say that treating their unions as being exactly equivalent in every single way to heterosexual marriage will be one more way that we've chosen to devalue marriage through a blurring of terms. It's not the most harmful, in my view, but it's still incorrect.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Zotto!, I'd like to see if we can make some of this more specific. Which of the benefits of marriage should not be available to same sex couples?
Here are a few general categories:
1) Default relationship benefits - absent instruction to the contrary, a spouse is generally able to give consent for medical procedures, inherits from the other at death, etc. Many of these are available to any couple if they do a lot of paper work, although the intent of the parties is easily thwarted if hospitalization or death occurs in a different state than that for which the documents were drafted.
2) Eligibility for benefits - health insurance from employer group plans, survivor benefits from social security/pension/disability payments, etc. Many of these are simply not available absent the voluntary choice of an employer (a choice the employer does not have with respect to spouses), and some states actually prohibit employers from offering them. Many are not available at all, ever.
3) Access to services - a comprehensive set of rules for terminating the relationship and dividing property, protection for non-property owners whose contribution enables accumulation of wealth, easier adoption of the spouses child (when the other parent has died or waived parental rights).
4) Taxes - joint tax returns, tax free inheritance at death, doubling of many limits such as the personal residence capital gains exemption. Not available at all to same sex couples.
5) Miscellaneous - the right to refuse to testify against ones spouse, the right to have private marital communications privileged, the duty to care for the other spouse, standing to bring tort claims for wrongful death, loss of society, and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims. Privilege and immunity are not available at all to same sex couples; the tort claims are available in some states but in a much more limited form.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'd just like to thank Dagonee for that post. That's probably the first time I've seen such a well stated list of marital benefits.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Dagonee, I almost didn't see your post because I'm running out the door here, but those are excellent questions, exactly the kind that I'm trying to work through myself. It's so friggin' complex.
As I mentioned earlier, I don't think that quite a few of the benefits of marriage should be exclusively part of the marriage package in the first place, such as some default sickbed concerns, some services for comprehensively terminating the relationship, etc. The thing is, I'm still at a loss to say what should replace what we have now; most things I can think of would take immense reform of the system, which might very well be just what is needed.
I've got to run, but I'll be back in a few hours and see if I can't organize some thoughts towards a rational compromise.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'll second what Karl said, both the thanks and that it's the best, well stated list I've seen on here.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: I think homosexuals have different types of qualities than other people, sure,
I think this kind of thinking is putting way too much weight on sexual orientation. I think there are likely to be no fewer differences between any two given homosexuals than between any given homosexual and any given heterosexual. You seem to believe the contrary. Aside from sexual predilection, what other "different types of qualities" do you believe homosexuals, as a group, possess?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:It's much the same as if we were to agree that people who are not disabled have the exact same right to the best parking stalls as the truly disabled.
The problem with this analogy is that the best parking stalls are a limited commodity. The benefits of marriage are not.
Edit:
quote:It's unfair because they don't fit the definition of what we've agreed "disabled" means.
No, it's unfair because disabled people wouldn't have the accommodations needed, because of the limited number of close in parking stalls.
Dagonee's response puts this into words better than I think I can, but still doesn't quite capture all of it for me, so I'm going to try anyway. You've listed your reasons who you think it's important to give the benefits of marriage exclusively to heterosexuals, and that's fine. . . everyone's entitled to their opinion. I don't find your reasons compelling, but I'm not interested in addressing that. I'm only interested in your statement that it would be unfair to heterosexual couples to expand marriage rights to homosexual couples, and your reasons why it's "necessary" don't address/apply to why it's "fair." Basically, what you seem to be saying to me is "it's unfair because we've agreed it's unfair."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think homosexuals have different types of qualities than other people, sure...
What more is required to consider someone an "Other" in addition to recognizing in him "different types of qualities" than in "other people?"
There's also an additional benefit to marriage that Dag didn't list, probably because it's not a legal benefit: social recognition of the value of your partnership. This is in fact precisely what I understand you to be saying we should not extend to homosexuals, for fear of cheapening the recognition we extend to heterosexual couples, because you do not believe that homosexual relationships are as valuable to society as heterosexual relationships and thus shouldn't be entitled to any additional recognition. Am I correct in this restatement of your opinion?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: I daresay I hope they never learn what causes homosexuality. Because if it's genetic, they will eventually find the gene. And what's to stop groups such as Focus on the Family from creating an initiative to genetically "switch off" the gay gene for anyone who wishes to make sure their kids aren't gay?
Short question: Whats wrong with that?
Long question: I think that it is inevitable that science will discover what causes homosexuality, it may be a long time from now because its mix of controversy and lack of profit, but it is inevitable due to the amount of rapidly advancing state of knowledge in biology. Compared to say, curing cancer, or reversing aging, homosexuality seems one of the simpler problems.
Going forth from this (IMHO, reasonable) assumption, it would seem that there is no pragmatic stance you could take to stop people from screening* for homosexuality. After all, in the most extreme case, people could just choose to do in vitro repeatedly and just not choose to implant an embyro with it "on."
Furthermore, I'm not sure what moral stance you could take against the practice in general. Say people did have the capability to make sure they had no gay children, what is wrong with that? If being gay is truly equal to being a normal couple, and akin to a different hair colour or eye-colour, then what is wrong with parents choosing to only have straight children?
* It would kinda have to be done through screening. Science is far from being able to really turn on and off genes in a kid, but well within grasp is the capability to identify which embryos have the trait present.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Addition: As a thought experiment (since I believe that the science is far far far away from doing it).
Say parents had a serum that could turn off the homosexuality gene and they used it on their kid before it went through puberty. What would be the harm? Would it be any worse (morally) than a serum that would change a kid's hair colour?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think so. Especially considering that people change their hair color on their own for kicks.
I have a friend whose mother dyed her hair blonde in third grade so that she would look more "American" (her mom was an Asian immigrant who was very concerned that her children fit in with the culture). Is that morally right? I don't really think it was, and even if that were the case, changing someone's sexuality is a whole lot more of a big deal than hair color.
-pH
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Is it?
The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another.
In any case, I take an issue with your terminology. (Or possibly clarify the thought experiment) My assumption was that being straight or being gay is something that develops during puberty. In that case, a serum that applies before puberty would not be *changing* someone's sexuality, because it has not developed yet. Rather, it would be changing whether someone is predisposed to *becoming* straight or gay.
While I'm at it, to forstall any Godwin-ing of the thread. Also assume that this kind of tinkering is being done completely by some parents who want to (the existence of which seems rather plausible), and not at the behest of any government performing a policy stating with the letter G.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another.
If you are of the opinion -- as well -- that it is not damaging to change one's son to a daughter, then there is some interesting reading out there.
One can value one as much as the other without thinking it okay to reject either one over the other. This seems obvious to me.
quote: My assumption was that being straight or being gay is something that develops during puberty.
This is quite the assumption, you know.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
CT: If I understand your point correctly, you are referring to the damage caused when a child is treated as a different gender (or sexuality, for lack of a better word) when the underlying orientation is not changed. This causes problems with repression, feeling unwanted, etc. etc.
If I misunderstand your point, please clarify.
My response would be, you're still hung up on the word "change". There would be no "changing" anymore than a son resulting from the use of in vitro screening to ensure a son feels that they were changed from female to male.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote: My assumption was that being straight or being gay is something that develops during puberty.
This is quite the assumption, you know.
Not sure where you're going with this. The whole assumption behind the thought experiment is that homosexuality is genetic. In which case, you aren't gay until that gene is expressed anymore than you have black hair until the gene for black hair is expressed and triggers the growing of black hair.
If you don't think that homosexuality has a genetic cause, then thats perfectly valid, but then it would seem that the comment is superfluous to the thought experiment.
Edit to add: Is your issue specifically with the time point of puberty? Then feel free to move back to serum to any point after conception. It shouldn't matter medically, in fact it should be medically easier the earlier the serum is administered. I just used it as an upper bound, since it would clearly immoral if a parent changed a child's sexuality after it had already begun to develop.
[ December 28, 2006, 01:17 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: My response would be, you're still hung up on the word "change". There would be no "changing" anymore than a son resulting from the use of in vitro screening to ensure a son feels that they were changed from female to male.
You said that "The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another."
I advanced that it is possible to change one's child in a fundamental way (such as male to female) and that this is a damaging thing to the child, even if one believes that boys and girls are of equally value. Thus I contested your claim that if you value both of a binary characteristic equally, there should be nothing wrong with flipping between the two.
(In case it isn't clear, "in vitro screening" is not the same thing as "changing a boy to a girl." )
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote: My assumption was that being straight or being gay is something that develops during puberty.
This is quite the assumption, you know.
Not sure where you're going with this. The whole assumption behind the thought experiment is that homosexuality is genetic. In which case, you aren't gay until that gene is expressed anymore than you have black hair until the gene for black hair is expressed and triggers the growing of black hair....I just used it as an upper bound, since it would clearly immoral if a parent changed a child's sexuality after it had already begun to develop.
So, you believe children do not have development of their sexuality before they go through puberty?
---
Edited to add: This is contrary to general medical understanding of pediatric development.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not relevant to the point he's making.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Is it?
The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another.
Actually, this is a gross simplification. Most of the supporters in this thread believe that the relationships of each sexuality should have equal protection/benefit under the law. Most people here, on both sides have more or less conceded that there are differences in the relationships, even beyond the obvious, but [EDIT: supporters of SSM recognition] that these differences are not sufficient for the law to discriminate between. The are equal in a certain context, but not equal in all contexts.
Zotto-- I'd just like to add that I think you've done admirably, and no doubt it's frustrating. I guess to sum up my objection to your well-considered opinion is what I mentioned in my earlier thread: You have at most shown why we could discriminate between the relationships, generally speaking; but you have yet to specifically show why we should, within the context of the law, aside from some ephemeral reasons around fairness and societal survival that you have yet to provide evidence.
-Bok
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not relevant to the point he's making.
Beg to differ.
You should feel invited to explain.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Addition: As a thought experiment (since I believe that the science is far far far away from doing it).
Say parents had a serum that could turn off the homosexuality gene and they used it on their kid before it went through puberty. What would be the harm? Would it be any worse (morally) than a serum that would change a kid's hair colour?
The harm is the parents deciding who the child can and now cannot be romantically and sexually attracted to. The majority of people in this country don't believe in arranged marriage because it unfairly keeps the child from marrying whoever they love. This is, in a sense, the same thing: choosing that your child can only pick from the opposite gender instead of their natural inclination. I guess it stems from my belief in "gay/straight/bi" since birth, because, from personal experience, children can and do act on their sexuality without knowing it.
I mean, flip the tables. Would it be just as okay if a serum was developed that let people make their children gay? This assumes, as yours does, that not everyone will use this.
I mean, to me, it's just vile to genetically manipulate a person. You're messing with nature, with who the person is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
There's a story by Greg Egan called Cocoon (not to be confused with the movie of the same name). It takes place in a future where it's been established as a matter of fact that homosexuality and heterosexuality are determined by natal hormones. That you're born gay or straight, and that's the end of it. As a consequence (in this story), no one much cares any more.
The main character is a cop, and there's a scene where his partner is planning on going to a pride parade. He isn't interested, because honestly, no one cares any more. His partner sees it as a cultural tradition.
One of the elements of the story is that someone has discovered a method of screening natal hormones, so that people, if they want, can guarantee that their children are heterosexual. The ethical question raised in the story is: If everyone does this and there are no more gay people born, is it genocide?
Like I said, it's a fascinating story.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I mean, to me, it's just vile to genetically manipulate a person. You're messing with nature, with who the person is.
Faith healers invoke the argument that messing with nature is wrong, how is it right to argue you must not modify a person's DNA but you MUST cure diseases if possible? I mean the law can demand a parent bring their child to the hospital for treatment regardless of religious conviction, as treating the child prevents suffering, and the child does not necessarily share the same religion as the parents.
I don't know there is just too much messiness to the whole "when is gene manipulation OK?" question.
I mean I realize we are speculating about something that may or may not be possible in the future, but still.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Shades of X-Men III.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
In Son of the Circus by John Irving, the main character is a doctor who spends part of his year in Canada and part in India. He has a sort of hobby where he's trying to find the causes of dwarfism with the goal of eliminating it. While in India he does a lot of pro-bono work for the circus and takes blood samples from dwarves. One of the dwarves at one point asks him why he hates dwarves so much and the question shocks him. He thought he was doing a good thing and never considered that the dwarves were happy with who they were.
I'm not really sure if this is all that pertinent to the subject at hand, but Lisa's post made me think of this.
Mucus uses the word "problem" in reference to homosexuality above. It's possible he means "problem" in the sense of "puzzle" or "question", like a "math problem", but I do know many people think of homosexuality as a problem to be overcome idealiy through its elimination. Many homosexuals feel that way, too. However, many others feel that the only "problems" with homosexuality are society's intolerance and bigotry, and that the human race would be far better off eliminating the problems of hatred, intolerance, and bigotry than in spending so much effort fighting the pseudo-problem of homosexuality.
I believe that (provided we don't blow ourselves up first) human ingenuity will invariably learn how to solve a hugh variety of genetic and social puzzles. I don't believe that homosexuality is strictly genetically determined, primarily because I don't believe sexual orientation is binary. I think the evidence is pretty strong that it is a wide spectrum and people fall all along it. Regardless, it is at least theoretically possible for science to catalog all the genetic and social factors that determine sexual preference and to devise a course of thereapy that would funnel all people towards heterosexuality. Long before that happens, however, I hope we've spent our resources more wisely discovering how to eliminate bigotry and created a world where one's sexuality isn't considered a "problem" to be solved.
A world where the capability to turn our children into homogenous expressions of the fears and desires of the majority (or a powerful minority) is coupled with the will to do so seems like the ultimate dystopia to me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Shades of X-Men III.
A lot of people noticed at the time that X3 very consciously modeled the reactions of people to mutants on the reactions some people have towards gays and lesbians.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not relevant to the point he's making.
Beg to differ.
You should feel invited to explain.
He explicitly phrased his thought experiment so that the procedure takes place before any sexuality is developed; he even said that you could move this up earlier if he was wrong about when sexuality first develops. The precise period, then, is not relevant to the experiment.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Homosexuality hinted at in comics? I'm shocked. So many rude/crude comments, so little time. I think I'll skip them.
Lets change it a bit. DWB and Racial Profiling is a big problem in the US. If we could alter the genes to make everyone the same color--say a light maroon, with some purple overtones, should we do that?
It would certainly solve the Race Problem.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: The majority of people in this country don't believe in arranged marriage because it unfairly keeps the child from marrying whoever they love. This is, in a sense, the same thing... I guess it stems from my belief in "gay/straight/bi" since birth...
I mean, flip the tables. Would it be just as okay if a serum was developed that let people make their children gay? This assumes, as yours does, that not everyone will use this.
Ah, but with arranged marriage you might keep someone from marrying who they love. In both cases, if the couple screened for only heterosexual babies or if they used a serum, the child would never *have* fallen in love with someone of the opposite gender. Thus, no unfair keeping...
As for birth, then thats my point I was trying to make with CT. The upper bound is irrelevant. The lower bound is important. In a strange parallel to the abortion debate...at what point does a fetus become a person? At what point does a fetus become sexual in the sense of gay/straight/etc. as opposed to simple male/female in the XY sense?
If you believe in abortion, then you usually justify it by an arbitrary dividing line between non-person and person. Then it is clear that it would be hypocritical to stop someone from manipulating the child before this point, when a simple recourse would be for them just to abort. Afterall, they could simply abort repeatedly till they got the same result which in some sense would be a greater evil, no?
Then what separates the person, non-person line from the non-sexual to the sexual line for the purposes of the serum?
Flip the tables: Ok, why would it be morally different this way?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: One of the elements of the story is that someone has discovered a method of screening natal hormones, so that people, if they want, can guarantee that their children are heterosexual. The ethical question raised in the story is: If everyone does this and there are no more gay people born, is it genocide?
This is an interesting implied point of my line of reasoning. In a very real way, we are already doing the same to many clearly defined diseases. Tay Sachs comes to mind as one good example. The (A?) Jewish community has a very well organized program to effectively minimize the number of children born with the condition.
Wait...but homosexuality is not a disease! However, one poster did already bring to mind a borderline case, dwarfism. Can be considered a disease, can be considered a culture... However, if a parent wanted to spare a child a lifetime of being short, who are we to deny them that chance? "You must have that dwarf to ensure the survival of the dwarf community" we would say. Justifiably they would say, "mind your own business."
I'm not saying all parents would be like this, but some would...and hence our puzzle. Would or would it not be ok for a parent to spare their child from Tay Sachs, dwarfism, or homosexuality? We have a continuum...where do we draw the line?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Not relevant to the point he's making.
Beg to differ.
You should feel invited to explain.
He explicitly phrased his thought experiment so that the procedure takes place before any sexuality is developed; he even said that you could move this up earlier if he was wrong about when sexuality first develops. The precise period, then, is not relevant to the experiment.
[edited for flagrant rudeness]
I do find it relevant as a general reflection of style and attentiveness, both to detail and to context. We certainly may agree to disagree on this point.
[ December 28, 2006, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: As for birth, then thats my point I was trying to make with CT.
Well, that isn't what you said, at least not the part I was responding to. If you meant to say something else at that point, then that is a different matter.
quote: The whole argument being advanced in this thread is that gay couples (and by implication, gay people) are exactly equal to straight people. If so, by definition, they are not better or worse than straight people. In which case, the parent is not doing any harm by changing it one way or another.
You imply/state that if one is not preferred to the other, then changing one to the other is not a problem. Because (I suppose), if these are valued equally, then it is an even trade.
Note that if the characteristic isn't in existence yet, then there is nothing to be "changed."
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Zot, I have some pretty serious problems with almost all of your big posts, a number of which haven't been addressed by others. Are you interested in dialogue on it, or do you have your hands full with everyone who's already replying to you? No problem either way. Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I mean, to me, it's just vile to genetically manipulate a person. You're messing with nature, with who the person is.
Faith healers invoke the argument that messing with nature is wrong, how is it right to argue you must not modify a person's DNA but you MUST cure diseases if possible? I mean the law can demand a parent bring their child to the hospital for treatment regardless of religious conviction, as treating the child prevents suffering, and the child does not necessarily share the same religion as the parents.
I don't know there is just too much messiness to the whole "when is gene manipulation OK?" question.
It's right to argue that because one radically affects the person's life before they even have the ability to make choices for themselves; the other eradicates viruses and diseases the can hurt, disfigure, or kill people.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Ah, but with arranged marriage you might keep someone from marrying who they love. In both cases, if the couple screened for only heterosexual babies or if they used a serum, the child would never *have* fallen in love with someone of the opposite gender. Thus, no unfair keeping...
Actually, it's the same by just what you said. With an arranged marriage you "might keep someone from marrying who they love." If the person is made to be straight, you could very well be keeping them from someone they fall in love with but can't feel sexually attracted to.
quote:Afterall, they could simply abort repeatedly till they got the same result which in some sense would be a greater evil, no?
Of course; I never said I agree with abortion, did I? However, just because one is worse doesn't mean the other is right. Humans have the uncanny ability to believe they're Gods and can tamper with everyone else's lives, rights, and wellbeing.
I just feel no good can come from the idea of eradicating gay people through genetic control. Nor do I feel the reverse is any better.
And yes, while straight people and gay people are the same, that doesn't mean it's ok to swap out gay people for straight people any more than you can do that for two different skin colors or religions, or what have you. After all, say, Mormons and Baptists both basically believe in Christ. Why not make all Mormons into Baptists, then? Because you're exerting control over someone and controlling their future.
Just because A=B doesn't mean we should actively make A into B.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
It seems to me that if A=B, then changing A to B or B to A would be redundant.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I would not be the same person if I were heterosexual. If you had changed my sexual preference in the womb, you would have, in effect, aborted me and replaced me with someone else.
I like who I am. I would not want to be anyone else.
Saying I'm equal to you in value does not mean I am just like you. I am not interchangeable with you.
When they find away to detect a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, there will be a surge in Abortion, because your average heterosexual would rather kill their baby than raise a gay child.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I would not be the same person if I were heterosexual. If you had changed my sexual preference in the womb, you would have, in effect, aborted me and replaced me with someone else.
Without commenting on whether this is a good thing, it may be worth pointing out that such an operation is entirely legal in most Western countries.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
*aborts KoM and replaces him with a southern baptist*
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Sorry for the long response time, guys; had a bit of that "life" thing to attend to.
Bok~ Thanks for the understanding, guy, I appreciate it. I'll think on it a bit and see if I can't explicate the reasons I see for legal differentiation further than I've tried to.
Karl and Tom: I think you guys are vastly overworking what I meant by "different qualities". I was responding to Tom's utterly false assertion that I see homosexuals as being a "separate" kind of person. The "different qualities" I was talking about are exactly those obvious things like "being attracted to members of the same sex", "having homosexual relationships", etc etc. These are qualities that are different from heterosexuals, just as heterosexual attraction is different and separate in kind from homosexual attraction, just as everyone has hundreds upon hundreds of differences that make us all individual. I meant merely someone separate and distinct from someone else (as we all are), and didn't mean to draw any parallels to the "Other" I mentioned earlier to denote someone as an unknowable, fearful alien, which I believe is part of the cause of much violence against homosexuals and other minorities. I'm sorry for the inclarity; I had no idea the words would be offensive (in fact I'm deliberately trying hard to be as inoffensive as I can be, and it's immensely discouraging that from your reactions it's just not seeming to work and I'm merely digging myself into deeper and deeper holes), and I would not have used them if I'd known. It was not meant to be a big deal. Cool if you don't believe that there is a difference, but I just spent pages trying to explain why, in my view, there is.
I most vehemently was not, however, trying to imply that you could classify or identify homosexuals by anything other than their self-professed attraction to the same gender, just as you can't classify or identify heterosexuals by anything more common than their own professed attraction to a different gender. It was an attempt at precision. Goodness, guys, I'm not saying "Man, have you seen how that guy eats his hotdogs? He's gay fer sure, you know how they is!"
So yes, Tom, I'm saying that we should not recognize homosexual partnering as being exactly the same as heterosexual partnering, in much the same way we don't recognise the relationship between a father and daughter as being exactly the same as a mother and son, or a co-worker and associate, or a hospital worker and a patient, or teacher and a principal, or any of the hundreds upon hundreds of kinds of relationships and groups of people and communities there are, no matter how similar in love and intimacy and loyalty they might be. It's an attempt at precision, not whatever you're trying to get me to admit to by asking leading questions.
Yes, I see a difference between the relationships, and I don't think one is "valuable" to society in general in the same way as the other. This does not imply that the people within such relationships are somehow inherently inferior to others and contribute nothing good to society. Clearly everyone contributes both negatives and positives, but I'm extremely leery of thinking that there's some sort of empirical scale we can "measure" people's worths by. I don't believe that recognition of differences is inherently unthinkable; I don't think the relationship between cousins is as inherently important to society as the relationship between parent and child, either. And etc. Homosexual relationships are much more complicated, of course, because they involve such very similar things as heterosexual relationships in terms of love and attraction and intimacy, etc, which is why I'm doing my best to treat such relationships with respect while still pointing out the differences as I see them. I'm not sure what else I can do, though, if the mere act of disagreement is enough to bring offense.
Twink~ I, uh, kinda do have my hands full with everyone else's responses to me, heh, but I'd still like to hear your thoughts; they tend to be well-considered, in my experience. I will have to be bowing out of the conversation shortly (got some traveling to the grandparents' house to do, as well as some new years eve parties to crash, heh) but if nothing else, adding another viewpoint into the mix can only help to clarify things further and add more value to the conversation. Do it for the lurkers, if no one else! (Though I do wish we'd call them "disagreements" rather than "problems" *grin*)
And finally, Dagonee: I haven't had a chance yet to truly consider your excellent summation of benefits really in-depth, and I'm running out of reply-time, but I'll do my best. For the quick run-down, I'll go ahead and tentatively suggest that numbers 1, 2, 3, and aspects of 5 should be available to homosexuals, as well as a few other kinds of relationships. This would probably require some immense changes in the system, but I think it might be beneficial in the long run, and not only for homosexuals.
I think my main sticking point is number 4, in that I think there's a core usefulness to society in keeping the reproductively viable couple in a specially-reserved status. There must be a middleground between recognizing that special status and having an intrusive dystopian sci-fi government regulating reproduction absolutely. Thing is, there are problems with all the hazy plans I've thought up, and everything I've seen others come up with too. If I'm remembering correctly, you're in favor of civil unions? What are the specifics to that, in your view?
Hoo. That's all I got for now, guys. Sorry I couldn't respond more thoroughly; I just don't have time to get into Mucus, CT, et al's interesting conversation, for instance. (And, uh, sorry if this post is nigh incomprehensible; typing kinda late at night) But again, I'm hoping that smarter folk than I will stick their heads in the conversation at some point; maybe we can get somewhere good.
[ December 29, 2006, 06:46 AM: Message edited by: Zotto! ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi: It's right to argue that because one radically affects the person's life before they even have the ability to make choices for themselves; the other eradicates viruses and diseases the can hurt, disfigure, or kill people.
Glib, but too simple. Take the example of dwarfism. It disfigures people, but as another poster noted, they may make exactly the same argument about how they would choose to be a dwarf. I have even (surprisingly) seen people with Down's Syndrome portrayed this way. So is it ok in these instances?
quote:Actually, it's the same by just what you said. With an arranged marriage you "might keep someone from marrying who they love." If the person is made to be straight, you could very well be keeping them from someone they fall in love with but can't feel sexually attracted to.
If they are really straight (and for the purposes of the whole thought experiment, we are assuming that sexuality is genetically determined) they would never fall in love with someone of the same gender, let alone be sexually attracted.
quote: Of course; I never said I agree with abortion, did I? However, just because one is worse doesn't mean the other is right. Humans have the uncanny ability to believe they're Gods and can tamper with everyone else's lives, rights, and wellbeing.
I just feel no good can come from the idea of eradicating gay people through genetic control. Nor do I feel the reverse is any better.
And yes, while straight people and gay people are the same, that doesn't mean it's ok to swap out gay people for straight people any more than you can do that for two different skin colors or religions, or what have you. After all, say, Mormons and Baptists both basically believe in Christ. Why not make all Mormons into Baptists, then? Because you're exerting control over someone and controlling their future.
Just because A=B doesn't mean we should actively make A into B.
Ah, but the key is we are already postulating a future where homosexuality has been determined to be genetic. This has certain consequences:
A) Some couples that really want a straight child, have two choices, abortion or the serum. Neither may be right in your view, thats fine....but they will choose one, which would you pick?
B) Not all couples will choose this. In fact, it would seem a number of heterosexual posters in this thread would not, as a direct counterexample. Thus any talk about eradication is irrelevant.
C) As for religion, people always (>90% probably) attempt choose the religion of their children.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I would not be the same person if I were heterosexual. If you had changed my sexual preference in the womb, you would have, in effect, aborted me and replaced me with someone else.
I like who I am. I would not want to be anyone else.
Saying I'm equal to you in value does not mean I am just like you. I am not interchangeable with you.
When they find away to detect a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, there will be a surge in Abortion, because your average heterosexual would rather kill their baby than raise a gay child.
First, thats a strange view. We are postulating the existence of a serum that works by changing your DNA. This process is exactly the same as what many retroviruses use. For example, HIV. So are you saying that if you got hit by HIV tomorrow (a gloomy prospect, and not one I would wish on anyone, but just as an example), you'd be in effect aborted and restarted as an individual?
Second, who is to say the individual resulting from the change would not like being themselves? Thus whether you like yourself is irrelevant.
Third, there may very well be a surge in abortion. Many right-wing pundits said that when abortion was legalized too, which leads us into an interesting demographic paradox/irony.
The basic premise of pro-choice arguments is that the mother has a choice as to what to do with her body, at least until the fetus becomes a person. Thus, until the fetus becomes a person the mother has every right to apply the serum, after all the fetus is a non-person. Anyone who tells her otherwise, is just oppressing the mother. "Her body, her choice"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The basic premise of pro-choice arguments is that the mother has a choice as to what to do with her body, at least until the fetus becomes a person. Thus, until the fetus becomes a person the mother has every right to apply the serum, after all the fetus is a non-person. Anyone who tells her otherwise, is just oppressing the mother. "Her body, her choice"
Heh. That's good.
Of course, it doesn't work across the board. There are positions that aren't identical with either the pro-life-screw-the-mother side or the pro-choice-abortion-as-birth-control side. Where the fetus isn't the same as a person, but is potential life, and as such not to be trifled with except when the mother's life is in danger. A position like that wouldn't fit your example, I don't think.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: When they find away to detect a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, there will be a surge in Abortion, because your average heterosexual would rather kill their baby than raise a gay child.
Have you seen "The Twilight of the Golds"? It's exactly about that issue.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
That's an excellent play, Lisa.
Zotto! Maybe you should rest up a bit before posting. First you get extremely defensive about misperceptions of your intent (which have been voiced calmly and rationally for the most part), then you turn around and talk like we're being reactionary and asking "leading questions". How about some of the benefit of the doubt you claim for yourself? I'll be the first to admit that this subject is close to home for me, but I recognize that and try very hard not to let my emotions impede rational debate. I also have years of practice doing just that at Hatrack, and I think I've gotten pretty good at it for the most part. If you're being misunderstood, perhaps there's some ambiguity in your writing.
As for the "differences" between homosexuals and heterosexuals, you spent a lot of words in several posts emphasizing these differences (note the plural[/i] but in the post above basically backtrack that to just one core difference (i.e. who they are attracted to - and it's implied lack of reproductive value). No one is arguing that there's no difference between apples and oranges. We're arguing that the differences don't keep them from both being fruit nor make either unworthy of being in the same bowl.
Your arguement seems to hinge on the idea that gay relationships don't produce offspring and therefore don't merit the same encouragement as straight ones. If this isn't a good summation of your arguement, please clarify why before responding to my next point.
The family is the basic unit of our society. Whatever benefits of marriage effectively encourage strong families and even strong families with children should necessarily be extended to gay couples because [i]gay couples already exist as families with children in the practical (de facto) sense and only now lack the legal status. Can you give any reason why these families are not worthy of the same benefits and protections of "marriage" simply because their make-up is not the result of pure biology?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mucus:
It's not a strange point of view. My personality would be vastly different if I had been straight. I would be a different person. Also, monogomously married people rarely get AIDS so I'm pretty sure I'm safe from that horror. And I'm a woman and dykes don't get it either.
Lisa: That sounds like a movie that would depress me whatever the outcome. I really don't like the idea that whether or not we should exist is a good debate topic.
Actually, I think I'm going to try to stay out of this thread for the rest of my vacation. I doubt I'm going to be able to pull it off, but I don't get much time off from work and I really don't want to spend it depressed.
It's really not like this debate will solve anything. At the end of the day, we're still going to be second class citizens. At least till you guys abort us all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Can you give any reason why these families are not worthy of the same benefits and protections of "marriage" simply because their make-up is not the result of pure biology?
To the extent I am comfortable with government incentives for modifying personal behavior (an idea I am shaky about in general), I'm not positive that government programs designed to give incentives for people to form the core family unit are a bad idea in the abstract.* In the specific, though, there's no moral way to do so. I break it down this way:
1) Any benefits given that are designed to help the children of married couples should be available to children of non-married couples. The use of these benefits as an incentive is immoral because the harm falls on someone other than the person whose behavior is sought to be changed. Categories 2, 3, and 4 from my post at the top of page 16 fall into this line of reasoning.
2) The default relationship benefits are ineffective as an incentive, because the benefit they provide is ease of implementing choice of a person to represent your interests. The choice would be the incentive, so removing the choice destroys the incentive. Further, there is benefit to the legal system itself in having more people come under the very well-established and more-predictable rules of family law in these situations.
3.) The final category (privilege, etc.) also fails as incentive, I think. I doubt most people understand these benefits until they're needed.
*That's very hedged, I know. I don't mean it to be weasily, but rather to express the fact that I have not formed a coherent opinion on the larger question. However, I have formed a coherent opinion that would be the same whichever way I eventually decide on the incentive issue.
quote:If I'm remembering correctly, you're in favor of civil unions? What are the specifics to that, in your view?
1) The legal entity called "marriage" will be renamed "civil union" - for all existing and future marriages. 2) The gender requirement will be removed. Consanguinity, age, consent, and other restrictions remain. 3) All existing non-gender specific legal doctrines of marriage will apply to civil unions. Gender specific doctrines (of which I know of only one still in use) will be adjusted as needed.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Out of curiousity, what is the one "gender specific doctrine" still in use?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The man legally recognized as the father of a child, irrespective of whether he is the biological father or not. When a couple is married, and the wife bears a child, the law generally presumes her husband is the biological father of the child, even though he may not be. (See birthfather for more information on the 1989 challenge to this status, which the U.S. Supreme Court denied.)
In a few states, this presumption cannot be challenged, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such laws (Michael H. v. Gerald D., 57 U.S.L.W. 4691, June 13, 1989). In many states, however, the presumption of paternity can be legally challenged with strong evidence, such as genetic testing. If there is no challenge to the legal father's status, then it stands.
Also, in about half the states, the husband is specifically described as the legal father in the case of artificial insemination.
I think it's handled very easily in same sex situations.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Glib, but too simple. Take the example of dwarfism. It disfigures people, but as another poster noted, they may make exactly the same argument about how they would choose to be a dwarf. I have even (surprisingly) seen people with Down's Syndrome portrayed this way. So is it ok in these instances?
I don't see anything wrong with dwarfism except that it I've heard it can cause a lot of health problems for people with that disorder. Otherwise, I don't see it as wrong, just different. The only bad thing about it, besides the health issues which I admit to knowing not enough about to form a truly accurate opinion, is the social stigma. But like all things, people are bad at accepting anything out of the ordinary.
quote:If they are really straight (and for the purposes of the whole thought experiment, we are assuming that sexuality is genetically determined) they would never fall in love with someone of the same gender, let alone be sexually attracted.
That's just not true and exceedingly presumptuous, if not arrogant. You can fall in love with someone without being sexually attracted to them. Case in point: I know a couple where one's a prude lesbian women and the other's a very sexual bisexual man. They love each other a lot, and are going on at least two or three years now. How can you explain their love? Because according to you, she doesn't love him.
Love is so incredibly complex that trying to say that it's dependent on sexual orientation is overgeneralizing far too much.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
This is a bit of a sidetrack, but I just listened to Vienna Teng's new song City Hall in the car on the way to my in-laws' house. It's about this topic, and in the midst of all the controversy, it's cool to hear a song that goes directly to the emotion of the issue.
Check it out, whichever side you're on. It's pretty cool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Yes, I see a difference between the relationships, and I don't think one is "valuable" to society in general in the same way as the other.
But, see, that's what I don't quite understand. How are you able to say that these two forms of relationship are sufficiently different as to require legal differentiation without implying that gays are "the Other?" Otherwise you're saying that marriage really is all about reproduction, which you've already said you don't believe.
If you believe there's something intrinsically different between two gay men in a committed relationship and two sterile heterosexuals in a committed relationship, to the point that the former is undeserving of formal societal recognition of their relationship, how can you not be "Othering" the homosexual couple?
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
Karl: I'm the first to admit that there absolutely is more than a little ambiguity to my writing (just as there is in pretty much everyone's on this subject), I've apologized for that very inclarity and the offense it provoked, I've tried to express my frustration with myself that I'm not explicating my position lucidly enough for an outside party with different starting premises to receive it clearly, all of which has barely even been acknowledged by anyone. I don't understand how you're receiving what I felt to be necessary attempts at further clarification on these points to be "extremely defensive"; I think you're reading tones into my posts that are simply not there. Again, though, I'm sorry if that was in fact the impression I gave, but I'm definitely not heated or trying to lash out at anyone. I understand that my uber-long posts might easily be construed as, like, passionate gushes of zealousness, but the length is due far more to me trying to explain every little detail and bend over backwards every way I know how to avoid offense and keep the conversation civil. I tried for a little levity here and there to make that clearer, but that didn't seem to have any noticeable effect either. I'm honestly not sure what else to say, or how to say it better. I'm sorry if this is unsatisfactory for you or people with your view, but neither do I think your position is satisfactory for people with my view; neither of us has a monopoly on that understanding. I was not trying to "claim the benefit of the doubt" for myself as if there were a limited quantity that might run out, I was trying to propose that both sides give it freely to the other.
Please note, also, that I was talking to Tom when I asserted that he was asking leading questions, which I still believe to be true. I believe I've given him as much benefit of the doubt as is warranted in this case, and in fact I've heard from people who believe he warrants far less than I give him. I tend to agree with him on a decent number of religious issues, as I've told him over email; I very much disagree with much that he has to say on other subjects, but I think he's generally trying to be a good guy; on the other hand, he doesn't seem to share any particularly similar view of me. Your posts (and indeed much of Tom's) have indeed been, for the most part, pretty calm and rational, and I'm glad Hatrack has well-spoken proponents of your "side" of this very complex issue.
Tom: if you honestly can't see any other alternatives between "Othering" someone and recognizing their differences (I suspect that perhaps we're each using "Other" in slightly qualitatively different ways), I'm once again at a loss to explain that such alternatives do exist if my previous posts haven't. Seems like half my posts here have said that, which is really pretty much a cop-out, but I don't think it's any less true for the repetition.
Dagonee: Your second-to-last post gave me a lot to chew on, and I think I'm tentatively moving towards your view of the situation. It was easily the most comprehensible and concrete post I've seen in favor of civil unions for someone like me who doesn't share all the same starting premises. I'm still very uneasy with it, for reasons I've obviously explained inadequately and I'll definitely be thinking about it more, but at least it feels like we might really be able to work towards a rational compromise between y'all and people with even more traditional views than mine, which is, I think, the goal.
That's all I got, guys, I'm sorry I don't have time to reply to the ginormous pile of stuff I should be replying to; I'm mostly trying to make sure that people know I appreciate the points of view and will think on them. I'm heading out bright and early tomorrow for a little vacation with the folks and grandparents, and I won't have internet access for awhile. Regardless of whether I'm here or not, though, I think there's much value in more people like Twinky jumping in and adding their bit to the potluck; heck, maybe things'll go even smoother towards a compromise without my overlong posts to muck things up. *grin*
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Zotto!, normally I don't dissect other people's posts to the degree that is about to follow, but I'm going to attempt it in this case because there's something implicit in your posting style that seems to undermine your explicit intent. Take this for whatever it's worth:
quote:Karl: I'm the first to admit that there absolutely is more than a little ambiguity to my writing (just as there is in pretty much everyone's on this subject),
Whether or not you intend to be saying "Yeah, I'm unclear, but then again so are all of you", that is what those quoted words mean at face value. If you really are interested in rational debate as a step to understanding, you need to lose the attitude that ambiguity is inherent in the subject matter and simply try harder to eliminate it. Further, if you do believe something I've said is unclear, please point out the unclear parts. I'm usually pretty good at making myself understood.
quote:I don't understand how you're receiving what I felt to be necessary attempts at further clarification on these points to be "extremely defensive";
My comment about "extremely defensive" was strictly in reference to your post which immediately preceeded it. In that post, you seem to me to be defending yourself against some massive offense Tom and I (at least) are perceived by you to have taken to your post. I don't think I have shown any undue offense. I don't see where Tom has, either. Both of us have asked questions which point out that your choice of words in previous posts could be interpreted to mean things potentially offensive. Those questions (at least in my case) have been intended as requests for clarity rather than expressions of offense.
quote: I think you're reading tones into my posts that are simply not there. Again, though, I'm sorry if that was in fact the impression I gave, but I'm definitely not heated or trying to lash out at anyone.
Except for the "extremely defensive" comment in my last post to you before this one, I haven't addressed tone at all but have responded pretty much exclusively to the implications of the words you have written. However, rather than listen to the questions or counter examples and clarify your point, you have mostly gotten defensive, blaming the reader for not understanding your admittedly ambiguous writing, appealing to the supposed inherent ambiguity of the subject matter (which I think you drastically overstate), and basically telling us to trust that your words don't imply what they seem to imply without actually providing any clarification.
One case in point: you seem to repeatedly be asserting that gay relationships don't have the same value to society as straight ones. You state this as a reason marriage benefits should not be given to gay couples. When asked which differences make them less worthy of equal protection under law, you explain at length that we're the ones over-estimating the "differences" you're talking about and that really you're only talking about differences in the sense that all people are different from all other people. Of course, by downplaying these differences in an apparent attempt to clarify that you don't mean offense, you are also undermining your own arguement. If indeed these differences are trivial, then why single out homosexual relationships for exclusion? You respond that we need to just trust that somewhere in the long preceding posts you've already explained that and so we're just trying to paint you into a corner and imply things you didn't intend. That's a cop out. You are in fact ignoring questions meant to help us understand your point, which is still unclear.
What are the differences between gay and straight marriage-like relationships that merit the different treatment of them? As far as I can tell, you're talking about differences in procreation, with maybe a nod to different abilities to perpetuate existing gender roles by example. Again if this is not your point, now would be a good time to say so otherwise I'm wasting my time counter-arguing a non-issue. If there are other important differences (note the "important") what are they? (Note also that, yes, I acknowledge everyone has a different idea of what is "important", but I'm asking you, so by implication I'm asking you to express your view of what's important.) If there are other important differences besides the two above, let's talk about them. You'll have to explicity state them, however, because I haven't a clue as to what they might be from your previous posts.
On the other hand, if there aren't any other important differences, and it's just those two that you are arguing, why do you think those are important enough to warrant exclusions for homosexuals? Note the "why", which is essential to "debate". So far you've just reiterated your position that the differences you see simply are adequate as a premise.*
If the differences are simply in the areas of reproduction and role modeling, I offer as counter arguement the following: Regarding reproduction, it's not so much the actual biological act of reproduction that is at issue, I believe, since clearly you don't extend the same exclusions to straight-but-infertile couples or straight couples who choose to remain childless. I offer as counter example the fact that families comprised of gay parents with children do exist already. Do you believe that the benefits of marriage should only be available to families formed through natural biological functions and not to those formed through adoption or artificial insemination or the use of surrogates? (I'm guessing the answer is "no" but you could surprise me. ) Assuming you don't believe this, then "reproduction" as a "difference" doesn't seem to be an adequate reason for exluding homosexuals from "marriage", though you're free to explain to me why my reasoning here is faulty, if you think it is.
This leaves only "role modeling" as a difference on the table for discussion as potentially being sufficiently important to warrant barring homosexuals from "marriage". Presumably you believe that the roles children can learn from straight parents are different from those they can learn from gay parents and that this difference is sufficient to bar homosexuals from marriage. I think it's debateable whether it's really critical in any way to actually provide both male and female "gender roles" to children**, but let's say that I accept for the sake of arguement that there is value in male/female parent partners that makes them superior to same-sex parents. It does not follow, therefore, that same-sex parenthood should be discouraged by withholding marriage from gay couples. First, we don't legally require two parents from straight people. We don't take children from widowers because they don't have female role models in the home. We don't force widows or single moms to "get a man". In fact, one of the benefits of marriage is to ensure that the surviving spouse is recognized as a parent in case of death of their partner. Why should one man be assured this survivorship benefit over another man simply because his dead spouse was female?
The second reason allegedly less-than-ideal gender role modeling is insufficient reason to withhold marriage benefits is that, as was stated in the arguement about reproduction issues above, same-sex parent partnerships already exist. If it's really about raising children, then how is it remotely not hypocritical to withhold the benefits of marriage from homosexual couples, yet not also bar them from forming families through other means. This seems only born of mean-spirited bigotry, and is particularly pernicious because the real victims are the children. You're in essence arguing that since we need to encourage people to form families that provide two-gender role modeling, we need to withhold the security provided by marriage from gay couples, any children they might have be damned.
Now, it's entirely possible you don't realize this is the implication of what you are arguing. It's also possible, but I believe much less likely, that there is some underlying logic I'm missing which simultaneously allows you to make this arguement but avoid these implications. If you believe the latter is the case, it is your duty to try to explain this underlying logic, not just state that it is there and I'm simply unable to see it because we all get lost in our own incompatible premises and etc. etc. That only serves to abandon discussion, not to further it.
Finally, since disclaimers seem to actually be necessary at this point, I'm not remotely upset. I'm not angry, or offended or anything of the sort, and no such emotions should be read into this post. I am mildly frustrated at the mis-communication, but in the spirit of trying to overcome that mis-communication, I'm writing this "ginormous" post in an effort to be excruciatingly clear. If I have mis-stated your arguement to this point, please don't simply say so and point me back to your previous posts. If there's clarification there, I don't see it. Please do me at least the courtesy of explaining where I am misunderstanding you and at least attempt to be better understood. I thank you in advance. I also recognize you might not see this for days. I'm willing to wait and look forward to your response.
__________________
* You seem to have said a couple of times that this is just the nature of the "debate" and that I can't see what you've taken for granted, just as you can't see what I've taken for granted. (Again, if that's not what you mean, now would be a good time to clarify.) I reject this response because: First, that's not a premise, it's a conclusion, which in debate needs to be actually supported. Second, I can and do explain my reasoning and see no reason why I have to just accept on faith that you do have reasons which must forever remain inexplicable to me due to some supposed blinding pre-conceptions on my part.
** Personally, I think gender role modeling is only critical for its own perpetuation. So much of traditional gender-based role typing has been denounced in current US society that it has become nearly impossible to list even a single characteristic exclusive to one gender or the other. I believe it is perfectly possible for a man to raise a healthy daughter without a mother or for a mother to raise a healthy son without a father. It seems logical therefore that redundancy in parental gender is better than single parenthood, all other things being equal, or at the very least is no worse than single parenthood. While some might believe that the ideal is having two parents of different gender, it's demonstrably true that having two parents of different gender does not ensure anything even remotely close to ideal parenting in practice. Since we don't legislate the "ideal" among straight couples, but only legislate bare minimum compentency in providing safety, security, education, and welfare, it is unfair to demand more than that from gay couples.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
What a good ginormous read, KarlEd. I find it very clear and unambiguous, for whatever that opinion is worth.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
As did I. Interesting read, and very well laid out, Karl. I'm looking forward to reading Zotto!'s response as well.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think he's generally trying to be a good guy; on the other hand, he doesn't seem to share any particularly similar view of me.
*laugh* Zotto, I think you're always trying to be a "good guy." If I think anything negative of you at all, it's that I believe you're easily frustrated by people who don't automatically accept your assertions simply because they have good intentions behind them.
quote: Tom: if you honestly can't see any other alternatives between "Othering" someone and recognizing their differences....
It's not a matter of just recognizing their differences, Zotto; it's a matter of your saying their differences are substantial enough to disqualify their relationships from official recognition. Their differences, in other words, are ones which you believe make their relationships less essential to society and definitionally inferior.
You have so far not identified what these differences are. You have said they are not exclusively related to procreation, and have said that they're not particularly major differences. You have, however, said that they're important enough differences to justify legal discrimination against homosexual relationships.
I'm honestly at a loss as to what these differences might be if they're neither procreative nor simple "Otherness." Can you give me an example?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
After reading this entire thread, I've seen the topic of the cause of same-sex attraction touched upon a few times. It is becoming rarer and rarer to see or hear the claim that one's sexual orientation is a choice, although it still happens. What I want to know is what difference does it make whether or not sexual orientation is an option? Why should it be illegal for two men or two women to make love or marry each other even if they could be perfectly capable and even happy in heterosexual relationships?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What I want to know is what difference does it make whether or not sexual orientation is an option?
It makes the "persecution" argument harder, and parallels to racism impossible, if people somehow "choose" to be gay. At that point, the ethical question at hand then devolves to "is being gay inherently bad, and therefore choosing to be gay inherently immoral," which is a point on which compromise is impossible due to religious arguments. The logical and legal arguments don't change at all, but many people see this as an emotional issue -- and whether or not homosexuality is a voluntary thing impacts that sentiment.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Professor Charles Roselli is being disingenuous. Livestock are not monogamous: their natural polygyny guarantees a VAST overage of males in comparison to the breeding requirements of the females.
I wouldn't've minded if he'd said, "We're scientists. Curiosity is our business." I mean look at the idjits who built H-bombs. But his dissembling too much resembles lying. Which is the exact opposite of what a scientist is s'poseta be doing when talking about his work.
[ December 31, 2006, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do feel the critics are rather jumping the gun, here. Surely it's worthwhile finding out what causes both homosexuality and heterosexuality, just on the principle that it's good to know what makes humans tick? Also, we've had the knowledge for some time of how to do a eugenics program that makes the Nazi one look like, well, ignorant messing about with phenotypes; yet I don't see any outcry over general bio research. Finally, consider that if you can turn homosexuality off, presumably you can likewise turn it on. Why is everyone assuming that the switch will only be used one way?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Like I said, a scientist's business is assuaging his own curiosity (and getting others to pay for it). What I abhor is trying to justify that curiosity with the nonsense of
quote:Approximately one ram in 10 prefers to mount other rams rather than mate with ewes, reducing its value to a farmer.
when ~78% of rams are castrated to increase their value to the farmer. Otherwise castration wouldn't occur. So claiming
quote:Initially, the publicly funded project aimed to improve the productivity of herds.
is just being deliberately STUPID when only 22% of born-rams are even left capable of mating, and an even smaller percentage are purposefully used as studs.
[ December 31, 2006, 07:35 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ah, but no. You can't tell beforehand which rams are going to come out homosexual. So, out of those 22%, about one in ten should have been castrated instead. If you could tell which ones, or repair them, why that would increase the value of the ones you don't castrate.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The birth sex ratio of sheep ~50males to ~50 females. Take a flock of 100 ewes and 100 born-rams. Of those 100 born-rams, 78 are castrated / turned into wethers. So ya have 100 ewes, 78 wethers, and 22 rams; of which 2 rams are not useful as studs. (Though if their qualities are high enough, their genes can be passed on through artificial insemination until a champion stud is produced.) The rams are separated from the rest of the flock at 3months. When estrus arrives, the ewes are taken to the mating shed where the typical mating ratio is 8to15 ewes per ram, depending on breed (and the attitude of the rancher): ie 7to13 rams per 100 ewes. So ya still have 9to15 too many rams. And only 2 of the 22 rams are non-studs.
The hypothetical prenatal treatment makes no financial sense when one considers the cost to run amniocentisis on 100to200* pregnant ewes, to find the 100* ram embryos suitable for further hormone-level testing, to find the 2 ram embryos "needing" that hypothetical "cure". A ridiculously expensive "cure" when lamb sells for US$64 to US$120* per head.
If there were a hormone test for thoses 100 rams after they are born and a "cure", the testing would still be absurdly expensive compared to extra cost of raising 2 rams as opposed to raising two wethers.
So let's toss out the hormone testing for 98 rams. Imagine a "cure" which can be used after the 2 rams begin getting frisky with other rams, and the proper dosage levels are known without further hormone testing. Sheep reach puberty at between 6to12months depending on breed and growing environment. Sheep can be sold as lamb up to the point when their two permanent incisors have grown in, which is 12to18months depending on breed and growing environment. So those 2 rams can be sold as lamb after they have reached puberty. Hence no monetary loss there.
Finally, let's suppose that there is a financial gain to be had by "curing" those 2 rams. Since hormone manufacture and expression are controlled by genes, all one would be doing by breeding those 2 rams would be increasing the percentage of rams and ewes carrying their genes: ie increasing the "problem". When ranchers often outbreed their livestock with champions to increase the probability that their own rams will have similarly desirable siring qualities, any champion breeder who uses such a "cure" on their rams to create studs-for-fee or to sell insemination kits from those "cured" rams would be engaging in fraud.
So there is no benefit to sheep ranchers, and no benefit to consumers. The only possible benefit would be to agribusinesses*** such as Monsanto who would be selling the pharmaceuticals used for testing and "curing".
* Sheep often have twins and less often, triplets; ie some birthings of mixed sex. For various reasons such as sheepskin thickness, docility, etc, one wouldn't want to create masculinized ewes. So less than 50% of all pregnancies would be possible candidates for treatment due to the fraternal twin/triplet sisters of those ram embryos.
** Using prices in Australia, where the drought has brought about deep culling of flocks; leaving far fewer lamb to be sold, and thereby causing a near doubling of prices.
*** Agribusinesses have already begun gene-tampering with fruits and grains to produce variants that produce sterile non-germinating seeds when farm-grown so that they can have a monopoly on seed stock.
[ January 08, 2007, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You have to ask, then, why are 22 rams not castrated, if only 10 are needed?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Just bumping for Zotto! mostly, but I'll say that I think fears about genetic culling of homosexuals (at least among humans) are premature. I do support further research into human sexuality, but mostly because I think the research will bear out that gay/straight is a false dichotomy, and that there are more factors than a single gene (or even set of genes) that determine a predisposition toward homosexual preference.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
When did this thread get to talking about livestock?
Present gay marriages would be grandfathered in, but no more after that.
In other news, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs changed his position on gays in the military and thinks it's time for integration.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
:fumes about victory reversal in MA: Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's not exactly a reversal. It's a referendum put before the people of the state on the issue. Eventually, things like that are going to have to happen. I don't know the citizenry of MA that well, so I can't say how they are going to vote, but, if they vote to uphold gay marriage, this could actually be a step towards not just cementing it in MA but also breaking down barriers in other places.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I don't know. If the referendum fails (which I hope it does), that will effectively finish the question in Massachussetts, but I don't think it'll make a bit of difference to people elsewhere.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I don't know. If the referendum fails (which I hope it does), that will effectively finish the question in Massachussetts
Unless, of course, a federal amendment is passed. The state law could then be ruled (federally) unconstitutional.
I think it's moderately likely that the referendum will fail, even if it makes it to a vote (it still require another vote by the legislature in 2007). The only poll data I could find was a Zogby poll from more than two years old, and it indicated a majority of MA citizens supported gay marriage then (50% vs. 44%). I imagine the numbers have shifted more in favor since.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Actually, it's the first step to a referendum. It needs to be voted for by 30-40% (I forget how many, but it isn't a majority) in two consecutive constitutional conventions, and then it goes to a vote for the people.
It's a bit disheartening, but was pretty much assumed, once the Senate president got enough heat for adjourning the constitutional conventions of the last couple years without putting it (and anything after it on the agenda) to a vote.
What's frustrating is the outside organizations that set up shop here, well funded by out-of-staters, and who keep this a politically live issue in the state. I just hope it either becomes moot, or the citizens vote for decency. Currently I think it'd be very close, not sure which way it'd tip.
quote:In its [unanimous] ruling, the Supreme Judicial Court -- the same court that ruled in 2003 that the Massachusetts Constitution gives same-sex couples the right to marry -- said it cannot force a vote. It said that the legislature's obligation to vote was "beyond serious debate" but that the most the court could do was remind lawmakers of that duty.
"There is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties," the court said.
In my mind, this is close to a perfect separation of powers decision. I do NOT want courts to be able to force legislative bodies to vote. At the same time, I think there is a constitutional duty to vote in certain circumstances, and I'm glad someone with absolute credibility on this issue said so.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Dag, someday I'd like to read your critique of Goodrich... Although I know your familiarity with MA state law is not large.
I wonder, though, why the people screaming about judicial interference aren't bothered by the court dictating to the legislature in this case.
Actually, I don't wonder at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wonder, though, why the people screaming about judicial interference aren't bothered by the court dictating to the legislature in this case.
It didn't dictate, though. It chided and said, "We don't have the power to dictate in this case."
quote:Dag, someday I'd like to read your critique of Goodrich... Although I know your familiarity with MA state law is not large.
There were two major decisions. The first required the legislature to act. The second was a response to a request for guidance from the legislature asking if civil unions would satisfy the first decision.
I've only read the second, and it was a long time ago now. IIRC, the case acknowledged that true equality of legal effect could be achieved by properly constructed civil unions, but that the social stigma would render it unconstitutional. (This is tremendously oversimplified, of course.) It was that reading that solidified my current opinion that the government should be out of the social approval/stigma business and therefore simply forego the use of the word "marriage" entirely - for everyone.
I distinctly remember the reading of the opinion being the trigger, but I've done so much of my own thinking about it that I can't be sure that I'm not projecting my own opinion backwards on my recollection of the case at this point.
Since the case was only a starting point for thought, not a precedent I tried to learn for legal application, I'm perfectly comfortable with the confusion at this point.
If I ever get around to reviewing it, I'll post my thoughts here.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think the reason some people who don't want judicial activism *did* want the court to rule the legislature had to obey this law, is that it's the law. People who oppose judicial activism (including me) don't object when the court rules *according* to the law; we object when it rules *without regard to* the law. This is entirely consistent.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the court's last ruling, becaus I don't know Massachusetts law; just that there is a difference between the court saying "you must obey the law" and "you must obey our wishes."
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Not really on the current topic, but worth a look anyway:
Those wacky Norwegians! Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Will, which scenario are you talking about? Gay marriage or the legislature voting on the amendment to ban it?
-Bok
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I just hope it either becomes moot, or the citizens vote for decency.
I was wondering if you could clarify this statement a bit more for me? I don't wanna read into your post something that wasn't there, since I'm not sure what you exactly meant.
Thanks. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Indeed, 'decency' is a bit ambiguous in this context.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Bump. For Zotto!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think the best result would be for Gay Legislators to be caught Marrying Activist Judges.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I wrote most of a long post for this thread about a week ago, but lost it. I just haven't had the will to write it again after investing all of that effort the first time around. I think this debate has worn me out.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Bumping for Zotto!. This is the last time, I promise. I'm really interested in his response to my reply above, if he has one.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
1) Seperation of church and state was formed to protect the CHURCH from the STATE. Not the other way around
2) Whether you agree with Scott's opinion or not, the fact is that the country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
3) If you allow homosexual marriage, you also have to allow: poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution, and other forms of frowned upon types of relationships.
If a man wants to have multiple wives, should he be allowed to have them? If he cant support them anymore, should they all be entitled to the welfare program?
Who are we to tell people that having sex with their dog is wrong? If they get a disease from doing their dog, tax payers should have to pay for that right?
If a 40 year old man wants to have sex with an 8 year old girl, he should be allowed to right? I mean, he cant help it, he likes younger girls, and who are we to tell him that it is wrong of him to want that? He shouldnt be sent to jail for that because he must have been born that way or chose that as his lifestyle.
Society has always revolved around rules, no matter how much you like or dislike them. Just because someone thinks they should be able to do something doesnt make it right.
That being said, I know a lot of homosexual men and women, and I enjoy their company. They are good people and are good friends. However, not ONE of them has told me they agree with gay marriage. In fact, all of them have expressed to me that they feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that they are fine with that. Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large. My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I probably shouldn't do this, but would you please explain this:
quote:If you allow homosexual marriage, you also have to allow: poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution, and other forms of frowned upon types of relationships.
You state it as if it's true, but there's no analysis here at all. And, please, deal with each one seperately.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
LMAO Saying that I choose to have sex with a fellow consenting adult is the same as raping a little girl is a little ridiculos im sorry, and the seperation of church and state is just that the state can do what they want as far as licensing and the church can ban from their little buildings whoever they want. As for beastiality ... I dont know how to respond to that as I am not sure if the animal is consenting... if they enjoy it
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I sort of read Geraine's post as a left-wing satire of the conservative position. I mean, I thought s/he was deliberately parodying SSM opponents by posting ridiculous straw-man arguments as fact.
Then I saw that you guys were taking it seriously... I have a history of missing the obvious, I admit, but trying to read those points as if they came from a legitimate POV made my nose bleed.
O_O
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You should swing by Ornery. We see this kind of stuff all the time, usually from people who have no idea that what they're saying isn't being received as mind-shattering new information that completely transforms our opinions on the issue. They always sound so disappointed.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Hey, that propoganda has to be believed by some less than discerning people, otherwise it would not be so popular.
Notice the little aid's comment--the disease from doggie love--that he implies should not be cured if the patient can't afford it. After all, its the patients fault he caught the disease.
This so easily translates to Aids is a disease of sin, and all money going to research it, cure it, or pay for the health of its victims should be stopped. Death and suffering is deserved.
Got to love that true Christian spirit.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: I sort of read Geraine's post as a left-wing satire of the conservative position. I mean, I thought s/he was deliberately parodying SSM opponents by posting ridiculous straw-man arguments as fact.
Then I saw that you guys were taking it seriously... I have a history of missing the obvious, I admit, but trying to read those points as if they came from a legitimate POV made my nose bleed.
O_O
Much as I hate to say it, there are actually real people like that out there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why do I feel so freakin' tired all of a sudden?
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: 1) Seperation of church and state was formed to protect the CHURCH from the STATE. Not the other way around
2) Whether you agree with Scott's opinion or not, the fact is that the country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
3) If you allow homosexual marriage, you also have to allow: poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution, and other forms of frowned upon types of relationships.
If a man wants to have multiple wives, should he be allowed to have them? If he cant support them anymore, should they all be entitled to the welfare program?
Who are we to tell people that having sex with their dog is wrong? If they get a disease from doing their dog, tax payers should have to pay for that right?
If a 40 year old man wants to have sex with an 8 year old girl, he should be allowed to right? I mean, he cant help it, he likes younger girls, and who are we to tell him that it is wrong of him to want that? He shouldnt be sent to jail for that because he must have been born that way or chose that as his lifestyle.
Society has always revolved around rules, no matter how much you like or dislike them. Just because someone thinks they should be able to do something doesnt make it right.
That being said, I know a lot of homosexual men and women, and I enjoy their company. They are good people and are good friends. However, not ONE of them has told me they agree with gay marriage. In fact, all of them have expressed to me that they feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that they are fine with that. Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large. My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
1) What makes you think that?
2) It does have its roots in a culture which was predominatly Christian. However, you will notice that lots of Christian cultures did not spawn democracy. It took the Enlightenment and its stepping back from Christianity to achieve that.
3) Again, why? Surely you can understand the difference between consensual sex and rape? What diseases should the tax payers pay for? Heart disease? Is this contingent upon whether the patient ate french fries? Pre-natal care? Cancer? What about lung cancer?
Again. What is it about the term "consent" that seems to elude you?
And society's "rules" should not necessarily be determined on what you happen to like, either. Just because you think something is wrong doesn't make it so.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:It took the Enlightenment and its stepping back from Christianity to achieve that.
I think that you may not have the causation entirely right here. Who is to say that Christianity did not engender the Enlightenment in a way that other religions did not? Even if the Enlightenment itself was not an explicitly Christian movement, there is no reason to believe that Christianity was irrelevant to it.
Not to argue on Geraine's side or anything. I think he/she is a great example of why this is an obnoxious argument that rarely goes anywhere good.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Puppy, How much do you know about the Enlightenment? I wrote a little post about it here in case you are interested.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You may have a point Puppy, but the enlightenment was a step away from conservative fundamentalist old testatment fire and brimstone Christianity. Claiming people like Jefferson, Madison, even Franklin were good Christians of the mondern Evangelical sense is far from correct.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that Christianity was irrelevant, but I think its relationship to Enlightenment philosophy is a lot harder to claim. Looking at it historically, it is easier to claim the the Enlightenment was a pendulum swing reaction to Christianity (or at least the power structures and struggles of Christianity) and an outgrowth of the Age of Reason rather than an "explicity Christian movement".
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: 1) Seperation of church and state was formed to protect the CHURCH from the STATE. Not the other way around
A common myth. It's supposed to protect both directions. Instead, it's being used to help the government bludgeon the church. Government is supposed to have no say what-so-ever in faith and vice versa.
quote: 2) Whether you agree with Scott's opinion or not, the fact is that the country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
It's also based on "Give me liberty or give me death." Since we can't agree on what God wants, (or even that he exists) let's maximize freedom for people who are harming no one and just want to be treated like anyone else.
quote: 3) If you allow homosexual marriage, you also have to allow: poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution, and other forms of frowned upon types of relationships.
Absurd. Let's take these one at a time.
Polygamy - The state's job of settling desputes in the area of divorce becomes expotentially more complicated as you add more people to it. How do you divide a house 4 ways? Who gets custody of the kids? Do they spend 1 week with dad, one week with mom, one week with other mom and one week with other dad? Letting two same sex people get married does not significantly affect the complexity of sorting out property.
Beastiality - Animals do not have the cognitive function to consent to marriage.
Underage Sex - Ditto. We have the age of consent for that reason.
Prostitution - How is getting married like selling your body for sex? Although I've heard a number of bitter men make this analogy toward heterosexual marriage. Maybe we should ban straight marriage? (Or maybe we can just toss this argument out the window since it would invalidate my own, heterosexual, marriage.)
Other forms of frowned upon relationships - Can you come up with one that's not so easily dashed?
quote: If a man wants to have multiple wives, should he be allowed to have them? If he cant support them anymore, should they all be entitled to the welfare program?
Mmmm.. how about no one being entitled to welfare and getting the government out of our lives? And what are you arguing against? gay marriage or polygamy? Your own example draws a line between the two. Unless you're talking about gay polygamy. But that's another fight.
quote: Who are we to tell people that having sex with their dog is wrong? If they get a disease from doing their dog, tax payers should have to pay for that right?
How about the tax payers don't pay for anyone's diseases and people take care of that themselves?
But what does boinking one's dog have to do gay marriage again?
quote: If a 40 year old man wants to have sex with an 8 year old girl, he should be allowed to right? I mean, he cant help it, he likes younger girls, and who are we to tell him that it is wrong of him to want that? He shouldnt be sent to jail for that because he must have been born that way or chose that as his lifestyle.
If it only affected him, he could knock himself out. But it doesn't it affects an 8 year old girl who has no clue what's going on. Unlike an adult, concentual relationship.
quote: Society has always revolved around rules, no matter how much you like or dislike them. Just because someone thinks they should be able to do something doesnt make it right.
And when we realize that a rule is stupid, we change it. I can vote now. I'm not some man's property. I'm not an outcast for being part native american. Black people can use the same restroom and water fountain as white people and even ride in the front of the bus. My marriage to my Jewish husband is legal.
quote: That being said, I know a lot of homosexual men and women, and I enjoy their company. They are good people and are good friends. However, not ONE of them has told me they agree with gay marriage. In fact, all of them have expressed to me that they feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that they are fine with that. Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large. My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
Anecdotal. Those of us fighting for equality are not "fringe". There are some gay people, especially in red states who say they aren't for it either out of sour grapes, or in hopes of fitting in. Maybe a few really don't care.
But in any event, I doubt you know "many" of us.
Pix
(edit: clarity)
[ January 08, 2007, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There's an interesting case to be made that the Enlightenment came about in large part because the organized Christian religions were so bad, providing an impetus to challenge the underlying philosophies and epistemologies that the Churches were pushing. It's genesis was marked by a clear strong anti-clerical sentiment and very few of its prominent figures had better than an indifferent attitude towards the Christianity of the day.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, the only two people who've replied to the substance of Geraine's post have responded with "rape" to his list of other things that should be allowed if same sex marriages are recognized. This is an idaequate response, as it does not apply to at least two of the items in that list.
As of right now, the things on that list ("poligamy, bestiality, under age sex, prostitution") are, generally speaking, crimes. Same sex relationships between two consenting adults are not. Instead of siezing on the trivial cases involving lack of consent, the two consensual activities - polygamy and prostitution - should be distinguished. Same sex couples right now can legally live as if they are married, though without legal recognition. If a man and two women try to do that in some states, they commit a felony.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: Notice the little aid's comment--the disease from doggie love--that he implies should not be cured if the patient can't afford it. After all, its the patients fault he caught the disease.
This so easily translates to Aids is a disease of sin, and all money going to research it, cure it, or pay for the health of its victims should be stopped. Death and suffering is deserved.
I love this line of reasoning actually. It makes lesbians God's Chosen people since lesbians have such a low instance of sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS.
Gay men get it cuz god hates gay men? Heterosexuals get it because god hates hets? Lesbians don't get it cuz even God loves two women. Yeah baby.
...
*grin*
Pix
(edit: typo)
[ January 11, 2007, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Honestly, I think that marriages of convenience, marriages for money, marriages for reasons of state etc., all of which are legal, are in theory very similar to prostitution. It is legal to give a person extravagant gifts in exchange for a sexual relationship.
As for polygamy. Again, theoretically, I have no problem with it - assuming that the complexities of the various contracts could be arranged. Sadly, like prostitution, it is, in reality, exploitive. Polygamy os often used to take advantage of submissive and often very young women and prostitution to take advantage of those that have little choice in the matter.
Which brings us back to consent.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Polygamy - The state's job of settling desputes in the area of divorce becomes expotentially more complicated as you add more people to it. How do you divide a house 4 ways? Who gets custody of the kids? Do they spend 1 week with dad, one week with mom, one week with other mom and one week with other dad? Letting two same sex people get married does significantly affect the complexity of sorting out property.
Perhaps in your last sentence, you mean "does not". In any case, the argument that the state would not allow polygamy (in the case that same-sex marriage is allowed) because it is complex is not entirely convincing.
I mean, have you paid your taxes recently? The state is certainly amenable to complex rules.
I suspect that there are other more important reasons...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are significant numbers of examples of both polygamy and prostitution that do not involve lack of consent.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If you give me examples, I could tell you whether I think, in theory, they should be legal.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Polygamy is a different relationship from one to one pairings, in much the same way that a n body gravity problem where n is greater than 2 is extremely different from a 2 body problem. There's no compelling reason to think that allowing a same sex one to one pairing necessitates allowing polygamy. It's a separate issue.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Dag, history has shown that Polygamy and Prostitution both are too often exploitive. That is not the history of homosexual relationships, at least no more so than heterosexual ones. That is why the state has an interest in preventing or discouraging the former while it has none for the latter.
Or try this: Prostitution and Polygamy both are threats to marriage, for many people who hire a prostitute are married, and polygamy greatly scews the number of available women and men to form marriages, forcing the unlucky men to remain unmarried as the wealthy, fortunate ones corner the woman market.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
MrSquicky:
Thats not entirely illuminating either. One could just as easily write.
"Same sex marriage" is a different relationship from "male" to "female" pairings, in much the same way that "a positively charged ion and a negatively charged ion interact is extremely different from two positively charged ions". There's no compelling reason to think that allowing a "opposite" sex one to one pairing necessitates allowing "a same sex pairing". It's a separate issue.
Which is exactly as helpful.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Polygamy is a different relationship from one to one pairings, in much the same way that a n body gravity problem where n is greater than 2 is extremely different from a 2 body problem. There's no compelling reason to think that allowing a same sex one to one pairing necessitates allowing polygamy. It's a separate issue.
It depends on your reason for advocating same sex civil marriage as to whether it's a separate issue. It's certainly a separate issue based on my reasoning.
However, the network increase doesn't justify making it a felony.
quote:If you give me examples, I could tell you whether I think, in theory, they should be legal.
1.) A poor woman wants to eat. She goes out on the street and sells sexual favors for money.
2.) A college woman with no real financial problems wants extra money for clothes and recreation.
3.) A college woman with no real financial problems wants extra money to establish her finances on a sounder footing after graduation.
4.) A woman with a broker takes exclusive bookings for liasons with men desiring her, netting her a six-figure income.
5.) A man and two women believe that God wants them to live in a polygamous marriage. The man is 22, the women are 20 and 18. They do not seek a marriage license and never represent themselves as legal spouses (insurance, taxes, etc.).
6.) Same as 5, with ages 30, 30, and 30.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, history has shown that Polygamy and Prostitution both are too often exploitive. That is not the history of homosexual relationships, at least no more so than heterosexual ones. That is why the state has an interest in preventing or discouraging the former while it has none for the latter.
The state isn't "discouraging" the former, it's making them criminal, v. denying a particular benefit to the latter. There are two degrees of difference there.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Mucus: Thanks, I edited.
btw, I don't think polygamy should be illegal and don't have a problem with state recognized polygamy so long as some very strict criteria are met. But that's an argument for another thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mucus, No, it is not for the reasons laid out in this and other threads which establish why people think they should be treated as the same in regards to this issue.
Straight and gay marriage are different, but, as has been argued in many, many, many places, these differences don't seem to many people to be important in regards to laws regarding it. Legally, there are a very few differences that appear easily remedied. Social dynamically, there haven't been any consistently demonstrated negative differences, which is also the case for a host of other aspects of marriage, such as child-raising fitness.
On the other hand, saying that if you allow gay marriage, you have to allow polygamy is not giving any reason that the differences between the two are irrelevant. Because you are adding a extremely significant increase in complexity, both in a social dynamics and legal context, this seems to me to be an important and extremely difficult if not impossible step.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: MrSquicky:
Thats not entirely illuminating either. One could just as easily write.
"Same sex marriage" is a different relationship from "male" to "female" pairings, in much the same way that "a positively charged ion and a negatively charged ion interact is extremely different from two positively charged ions". There's no compelling reason to think that allowing a "opposite" sex one to one pairing necessitates allowing "a same sex pairing". It's a separate issue.
Which is exactly as helpful.
I disagree with Squick that it isn't an issue, but I don't disagree that the number is an issue.
The reason I think it's an issue is that we've decided to revisit one of the universal attributes of legal marriage that has existed since this country was founded (differing sex of the participants) in the name of allowing greater personal freedom. We have a demonstrable population that is denied a particular expression of their personal freedom by another of the universal attributes (only two participants). We owe it to them to explain why this attribute can't be changed.
It so happens that Squick's analogy of the 2-body problem v. the n-body problem is a very good metaphor for my reasons for making the one change and not the other. But I do think a quick dismissal is unwarrented. It's a perfectly legitimate question to ask, both for the opposition to same sex civil marriage and to those seeking not necessarily legal recognition of polygamy, but the right to practice it without being thrown in jail.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, You're making them issues combined in an underlying spirit (re-examining the attributes of legal marriage), which I'm fine with. I was using the idea of them being separate issues in regards to the specifics; as a way of saying that consideration of one is separate from the other. It is possible that, as we are re-examining marriage, we'll decide to allow or at least decriminalize polygamy, but this decision does not rest on the outcome of the gay marriage decision, but rather on a separate consideration of the aspects of polygamy itself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:If you give me examples, I could tell you whether I think, in theory, they should be legal.
1.) A poor woman wants to eat. She goes out on the street and sells sexual favors for money.
2.) A college woman with no real financial problems wants extra money for clothes and recreation.
3.) A college woman with no real financial problems wants extra money to establish her finances on a sounder footing after graduation.
4.) A woman with a broker takes exclusive bookings for liasons with men desiring her, netting her a six-figure income.
5.) A man and two women believe that God wants them to live in a polygamous marriage. The man is 22, the women are 20 and 18. They do not seek a marriage license and never represent themselves as legal spouses (insurance, taxes, etc.).
6.) Same as 5, with ages 30, 30, and 30.
1) I think that woman is in a position to be exploited and that we - as human beings if not as a society - have an obligation to protect rather than punish her.
2, 3, 4) I don't see how they differ from a 2) a college student who sleeps with (or dates or marries) someone because he buys her pretty clothes and takes her fun places - not illegal; 3) Sleeps with (or marries) someone who helps to support her; or 4) Sleeps with (or marries) someone who can support her really well. All of those things we allow.
5, 6) What is stopping that from happening now? I would be concerned with the "God wants" part as that is frequently used to justify abuse. Is the 22 year-old man calling the shots or does he get his orders from "higher up"? Sometimes consent is more than a matter of age.
As you may be able to tell, my concern with the legality of these actions is one of informed consent and exploitation. I believe that society has an obligation to protect its weaker members. This is not, historically, an issue with they types of SSM marriages we are talking about. As a matter of fact, it would give partners more security and status and legal protection.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You're making them issues combined in an underlying spirit (re-examining the attributes of legal marriage), which I'm fine with.
OK, that makes sense. I tend to see them as discussions about the nature of legal recognition of marriage itself - that being the only reason I was able to reach a decision on this issue at all. To me, this was never a discussion about specifics. Your distinction here clarifies your original post about the 2-body problem and removes my objection (which was never to the analogy.
The main reason I participate in these discussion is not the specific outcome, but to encourage more precise thinking about the nature of law and legitimacy of government action in general. I care about the specific outcome, but it's all been said at this point. The larger philosophical question is what I truly care about.
quote:I was using the idea of them being separate issues in regards to the specifics; as a way of saying that consideration of one is separate from the other. It is possible that, as we are re-examining marriage, we'll decide to allow or at least decriminalize polygamy, but this decision does not rest on the outcome of the gay marriage decision, but rather on a separate consideration of the aspects of polygamy itself.
True, but hopefully also using the new paradigm of legal v. social entities that I've been advocating. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that woman is in a position to be exploited and that we - as human beings if not as a society - have an obligation to protect rather than punish her.
What about the men who hire her?
quote:5, 6) What is stopping that from happening now? I would be concerned with the "God wants" part as that is frequently used to justify abuse. Is the 22 year-old man calling the shots or does he get his orders from "higher up"? Sometimes consent is more than a matter of age.
It's a felony, and the fact of such a relationship has been used, fairly recently, to justify removal of children and placement in an orphanage.
I'm not sure I follow the overall gist of your post. You keep qualifying the answers with concerns over exploitation. Are you advocating that we add an element to the crimes "illegal if exploitation occurs"? Or are you advocating making non-exploitative instances of commonly exploitative situations illegal in order to prevent the exploitative instances?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Dag: I think thats a very good summary of the reasons why we should be considering polygamy (in relation to same-sex marriage), since its currently banned for many of the same reasons that same-sex marriage was until recently(sorta) banned.
MrSquickly: I was just saying that the metaphor by it self, is pretty useless. If we have outlined "reasons laid out in this and other threads which establish why people think they should be treated as the same in regards to this issue" we should specifically examine each reason and show how it is or is not applicable to polygamy.
In particular, it seems short-sighted / hypocritical to dismiss polygamy off-hand with a casual remark while going for same-sex marriage.
The main arguments against same-sex marriage, that it degrades the institution of marriage, that it is against Judeo-Christian values, etc. mostly seem to be cross-applicable against polygamy.
On the other side, the arguments for same-sex marriage, that it doesn't hurt marriage, that we should observe separation of church and state, that marriage should be defined by love and two men/women in love == one man + woman, etc. also seem cross-applicable for polygamy.
In particular, it seems that we have defined marriage due to an initial religious thrust, that is to say the religions that came to dominate the Western world favoured chastity and as a close second, monogamy. Then we rationalised it afterwards.
It may be an interesting exercise to take a portion of the thread, take the arguments for/pro same-sex marriage and see how they relate to polygamy. I do not think that the results will be a trivial dismissal of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:5, 6) What is stopping that from happening now? I would be concerned with the "God wants" part as that is frequently used to justify abuse. Is the 22 year-old man calling the shots or does he get his orders from "higher up"? Sometimes consent is more than a matter of age.
It's a felony, and the fact of such a relationship has been used, fairly recently, to justify removal of children and placement in an orphanage.
I'm not sure I follow the overall gist of your post. You keep qualifying the answers with concerns over exploitation. Are you advocating that we add an element to the crimes "illegal if exploitation occurs"? Or are you advocating making non-exploitative instances of commonly exploitative situations illegal in order to prevent the exploitative instances?
Maybe I am misunderstanding your scenario. Extra marital affairs are not illegal. Extra marital affairs with roommates are not illegal. Men having children with more than one woman is not illegal. Why is the combination a felony?
My gist is that if, for example, a woman marries a man because he is old and rich and she wants his inheritance, not only is that legal, but the state will sanction it and protect her rights to that inheritance. Whether or not they have, intend to have or are capable of having children. But two women who love each other can't get married. I do not see the reason in this.
My concern with exploitation and consent is mentioned as a caveat to my general attitude that the government is inconsistant regarding what types of sexual relationships they allow, sanction, or punish.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Mucus,
quote:In particular, it seems short-sighted / hypocritical to dismiss polygamy off-hand with a casual remark while going for same-sex marriage.
It is not a matter of dismissing polygamy. It is a matter of realizing that it is a separate matter that does not affect the consideration of same sex marriage. As such, when advocating same sex marriage, there is no need to defend polygamy and the enormous difference that I pointed out is enough to demonstrate that same sex marriage will not necessarily lead to polygamy.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Claiming people like Jefferson, Madison, even Franklin were good Christians of the mondern Evangelical sense is far from correct.
You're right, that would be insane. To my knowledge, modern evangelical Christianity didn't exist at all until, what, forty years ago?
My main point was really that Christianity as a core philosophy and as a cultural influence can be separated from the outward organizations and traditions that represent it. While Enlightenment philosophers rightly (in my opinion) rejected a lot of the attitudes and behavior of some forms of Christianity of their era, that doesn't mean that Christianity itself was an entirely negative or oppositional influence on them.
[ January 08, 2007, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why is the combination a felony?
Good question. But it is.
quote:My gist is that if, for example, a woman marries a man because he is old and rich and she wants his inheritance, not only is that legal, but the state will sanction it and protect her rights to that inheritance. Whether or not they have, intend to have or are capable of having children. But two women who love each other can't get married. I do not see the reason in this.
OK. Never mind, we're talking about two different things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
OK.
Out of curiosity, how do they determine felonious situations from just casually complicated ones? Is it the question of where they live?
I can understand the motivation for removal of children in cases where daughters are being "groomed" as future "brides". Again, there we are touching on issues of informed consent - though the line gets pretty blurry.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Did we lose Geraine?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Nope, Im here.
Just enjoying it all.
Seems Olivet is the only one that saw what I was really doing
However, I will say one thing concerning polygamous exploitation. If all of the women in the relationship honestly believe that God wants them to have this relationship, and they were raised being taught this, then why is it wrong? I realize that the men could use this to exploit the women, however how is this different than any other form of legal exploitation?
Someone stated the burden on the state in terms of splitting up children and the like. But the fact is that the divorce rate in these types of communities and relationships is almost nil. Compare that to a staggering (Over 50%) divorce rate among monogamous couples, and you have a type of relationship that is a LOT less burden on society.
On the other hand, polygamy and underage marriage goes hand in hand. Again, their religious beliefs play the biggest part in this. Many people involved in these relationships do not believe they are doing something wrong. They believe it is a good thing that the girls are married off young. However, just because they believe that it is ok or right, doesn't MAKE it right. Am I correct?
I dont know how many of you know about this group, but go google NAMBLA, and tell me what you all think. ITs the North American Man Boy Love Association, and fights for the right of legal age men to have sexual relationships with underage boys. Turns out our new Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi supports them. Do a little research and you will find out she supported, helped fund, and attended their parade.
Can you tell me how an underage boy can have consentual sex? If a man cant have sex with an underage girl, why do these people feel it is ok for them? If society says it is not ok to have a homosexual relationship, why is it ok for them?
I dont want to come across as a gay basher or anything, because it couldn't be more far from the truth. Like I mentioned earlier, I have gay friends, a gay cousin, and it doesnt bother me. But do I think they should be allowed to get married? Nope, not really.
I know the whole "If it doesnt affect you then why should you care?" argument, and Im sorry, but the same could be said about drugs, drunk driving, sex parties, raves, and other forms of "lifestyle" choices. Does it make them healthy or right just because people think it does?
I liken this whole argument to smoking. When it first came around, it was a fad, it was cool to smoke, and everyone said there was no consequences to smoking. Then 30 or some years later we find out all the problems it can cause in childbirth, cancer, and other health risks. Now there are warning labels, public smoking is banned in a number of states, and there are a thousand programs to try and help you quit.
Does gay marriage affect me? Everyone tells me it doesnt. But then again, 25 years ago people told me second hand smoke wouldnt hurt me either.
(I hope Olivet isnt the only one that gets my post this time, hehehe)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, good. The liar is back.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:But then again, 25 years ago people told me second hand smoke wouldnt hurt me either.
Actually, they're saying that again Received wisdom goes in cycles ...
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Ah, good. Our source of entertainment is back.
Fixed! Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Getting us to jump through hopes for her amusement must be very entertaining. A waste of my time, however.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I think it's funny that the banner add at the bottom of this thread has changed from "Should they be allowed to wed?" to "Is Gay Marriage Wrong?"
The picture and the link have stayed the same, but the questions are very different, to my way of thinking.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I dont know how many of you know about this group, but go google NAMBLA, and tell me what you all think. ITs the North American Man Boy Love Association, and fights for the right of legal age men to have sexual relationships with underage boys. Turns out our new Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi supports them. Do a little research and you will find out she supported, helped fund, and attended their parade.
In an attempt to deflect attention away from the Mark Foley scandal, there is criticism that Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani all marched in gay pride parades that *happened* to have NAMBLA floats. Those bastards!
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Wow. It changed the moment I mentioned it. I must be, like, a god or something!
Edit: now it's back!
*giggle-fit
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Here let me make it easy for you. <Removed link. --PJ>
By the way, the one you listed wasnt the first hit on google.
As for second hand smoking not affecting you, tell that to my aunt, who got throat cancer even though she never smoked one cigarette in her entire life. Her husband smoked every day, and they made a direct link to it.
[Edit: Please don't link directly to NAMBLA's website. It's out there, people can find it if they want. --PJ]
[ January 11, 2007, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Please don't link to that site from here.
Also, we've discovered before that different people searching from different parts of the country get different google results. Just because it wasn't the first hit for you doesn't mean it wasn't for Mucus.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Ah, good. The liar is back.
I guess some things never change. Anyone that agrees with you is a normal, intelligent person, and anyone that doesnt agree with you automatically becomes a liar. Instead of commenting on what I type you make a beeline for the name calling. Yet if someone calls someone a name that ISNT in accordance to your beliefs, we becomes bigots, hypocrits, and bashers. I just dont understand it.
The fact is that both sides are exactly the same. They believe in something. We were raised in different types of households or taught that certain things were wrong and that other things were ok. The difference is that I was taught by parents, teachers, religion, and my local society that gay marriage was wrong. They never taught me to hate homosexuals, or call them names, but concerning marriage, I was taught that it is between a man and a woman. Some were brought up in a different type of environment that believed the opposite. Were you born thinking homosexual marriage was ok, or were you taught and told it was, then decided for yourself?
And Im done. This discussion can and will go on for decades, and noone will change anyone elses minds. So good day.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Hey Geraine... perhaps it would behoove you to lurk on a forum for a bit before posting?
That way you don't slander possibly the most respected and intellectually honest poster on hatrack with your 8th post.
GLHF.
Pix
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I do not care if someone is one of the most respected and intellectually honest posters on Hatrack. If I am called a liar, I say what I believe.
Intellectually honest people dont resort to name calling. They debate intellectually. That being said, I do agree with Dagonee on a lot of his viewpoints.
And just because this is only my 8th post here on the forums does not mean I have not been reading them for years.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I dont know how many of you know about this group, but go google NAMBLA, and tell me what you all think. ITs the North American Man Boy Love Association, and fights for the right of legal age men to have sexual relationships with underage boys. Turns out our new Speaker of the House, Nancy Polosi supports them. Do a little research and you will find out she supported, helped fund, and attended their parade.
In an attempt to deflect attention away from the Mark Foley scandal, there is criticism that Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, and Rudy Giuliani all marched in gay pride parades that *happened* to have NAMBLA floats. Those bastards!
Any parade that allows NAMBLA floats is immoral, regardless of any positive thing that might otherwise have been in the parade.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:The difference is that I was taught by parents, teachers, religion, and my local society that gay marriage was wrong. They never taught me to hate homosexuals, or call them names, but concerning marriage, I was taught that it is between a man and a woman. Some were brought up in a different type of environment that believed the opposite. Were you born thinking homosexual marriage was ok, or were you taught and told it was, then decided for yourself?
I think this is hyperbole. I find it hard to believe that anyone over 15 years old was taught that marriage was between a man and a woman in any kind of remotely explicit way. I'll accept that it has been implicit in society, but I don't thing the vast majority of people even considered the issue one way or the other except in the last 15 to 20 years or so. (Of course, I don't know Geraine. She might be 15 or 20 years old.)
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I might add that there was people talking about this well before the Mark Foley scandal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess some things never change. Anyone that agrees with you is a normal, intelligent person, and anyone that doesnt agree with you automatically becomes a liar. Instead of commenting on what I type you make a beeline for the name calling.
Actually, I was the only one who attempted to engage you in actual discussion after your lying post. It has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with you. As of now, I have no idea what your views are on this issue because I have zero trust in your honesty.
I did comment on what you wrote - specifically, I identified the only now-relevant attribute of your posts - that they cannot be truested as an attempt to be honest discussion. Since that is what I and most of the people in this thread are here for, it's highly relevant to point out when someone isn't attempting it.
We've had an amazing discussion in this thread, one in which someone has said they are reconsidering their beliefs and another person - a person with a deeply personal interest in this issue who weathers the indignity of foolish insults like those in your lying post with more dignity than I can even imagine possessing - spoke respectfully and passionately.
You spit on that, and then pretended you were doing us all a favor by lying to us to share your wisdom.
quote:I find it hard to believe that anyone over 15 years old was taught that marriage was between a man and a woman in any kind of remotely explicit way.
I was. It wasn't contrasted to "not two men" or "not two women," but it was explicitly taught as being between a man and a woman.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:It wasn't contrasted to "not two men" or "not two women," but it was explicitly taught as being between a man and a woman.
OK, I'll buy that. I was thinking "in contrast to. . ." but didn't write it. I should have.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And Im done. This discussion can and will go on for decades, and noone will change anyone elses minds. So good day.
I'd love for you to be done, but you're not. You're still chiming in. The only way you can prove you aren't a liar is by ceasing to discuss issues of homosexual marriage in this particular thread...something which, I suspect, would be well-received by many. By myself at the very least.
And Dagonee didn't call you a liar because he disgreed with you, he called you a liar because you lied and he knew it, because you admitted to it.
Do the math on that, smart man, and try and convince everyone that 1+1=3 and that when someone calls a liar a liar, they're calling them a liar because they disagree with them.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Hmm. I was taught that homosexuality is sinful and wrong, and that marriage was between a man and a woman. I was also taught that there is a difference between personal morality what should be legislated.
Many churches didn't look upon my parent's marriage as a true scriptural marriage because they had been married before, but that did not change that they were legally married, enjoying the benefits of that status.
My parents also taught me to not accept something as Truth just because someone else said it was so, that the voice of teh spirit inside me would me to the truth, if I listened.
*shrug*
I just don't have it in me to support laws that serve no purpose I can see other than to make people different from me feel bad. I know a gay couple that has been together as long as my husband and I have. They aren't activists or anything, but when Georgia passed a law making gay Marriage Extra-Crispy Illegal (it was already illegal here, this was just a chest-beating, get-out-the-conservative-clenched-buttocks-vote) I know it hurt them.
I don't want to be part of that. I just don't.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
I tried to keep myself from responding, but it was just too tempting.
quote:However, not ONE of them has told me they agree with gay marriage. In fact, all of them have expressed to me that they feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that they are fine with that. Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large.
The bolded statements made me ROFL.
quote:My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
quote:ITs the North American Man Boy Love Association, and fights for the right of legal age men to have sexual relationships with underage boys.
Does anyone else see the irony here? Anyone?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Maybe I am failing to see where I am a liar. Please point it out so that I can see for myself.
And as for how I honestly feel, read my first post. Yes it was tongue in cheek, but it was also honestly how I feel.
I feel gay marriage is wrong, and not just because of religious reasons.
Rakeesh, thank you for the compliment.
I am not here to bash anyone, anyones beliefs, and am truly concerned about how other people feel. I apologize for being passionate about it, and if some of you took it the wrong way, as lying or what have you, it was not my intention, and I am truly sorry.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Geraine, then I am misunderstanding you. "Tongue in cheek" and "honestly how I feel" are not generally the same thing.
This is what Olivet thought you were doing:
quote: I sort of read Geraine's post as a left-wing satire of the conservative position. I mean, I thought s/he was deliberately parodying SSM opponents by posting ridiculous straw-man arguments as fact.
Then I saw that you guys were taking it seriously... I have a history of missing the obvious, I admit, but trying to read those points as if they came from a legitimate POV made my nose bleed.
O_O
And you said (I thought) that she was right.
quote: Seems Olivet is the only one that saw what I was really doing
Should we take you at face value or not?
[ January 12, 2007, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: And as for how I honestly feel, read my first post. Yes it was tongue in cheek, but it was also honestly how I feel.
I feel gay marriage is wrong, and not just because of religious reasons.
So you equate two adult men or women marrying to a man or woman and an animal marrying? If that's not meant to be demeaning, then how is it to be taken? As an argument, it holds no validity with the fact that, right or wrong, an animal has no recognized right to enter into a contract with anyone. It is not recognized as a human being, whereas a gay person is.
It's almost like saying SSM will allow people to marry their toasters.
As for underage marriage, see above. An eight year old girl is not recognized by the law as being old enough to enter into a contract. This is why forms for people under eighteen require a parental signature.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Society has always revolved around rules, no matter how much you like or dislike them. Just because someone thinks they should be able to do something doesnt make it right.
Yes, you have a point. However, not all rules should be kept. See the last 300 years of American history for examples of rules that were changed or dismissed.
Or, I could ask: doesn't this mean, by your logic, that just because you think you should be able to keep gay people from marrying, you don't have the right to do so/doesn't make it right?
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Only a very small amount of homosexual men and women are fighting for this, and not the homosexual community at large. My friends are disgusted at the members of this fringe group.
I'd like some non-biased statistics, please, that prove this statement. Because I hardly think conservatives would rush to ban gay marriage in every state if it were a small number of gays in a fringe movement.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: 2) Whether you agree with Scott's opinion or not, the fact is that the country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Yes, so? The commonly held view at the time was that slavery was okay "because the Bible said so." Does that mean we must adhere still to that belief? Or the belief that women are inferior to men? That all Ten Commandments must be kept by all citizens?
We have a Freedom of Religion in this country. Just because this country was founded on Christian morals and ethics does not mean we should legislate based upon them.
I have a very hard time trying to take what you say seriously because you call gays for marriage a "fringe" minority and that most gays are "disgusted" with them, while using NAMBLA as an argument against gay marriage (because gay men secretly want to have sex with minors.)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
'Cause, you know, we Christians are all about love and acceptance.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I'll cool my jets a bit and try again then.![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I know this must be quite irritating to you, but I honestly am not trying to be obtuse. And it is, I think, an important point.![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)