quote:In striking down the ban, the court said, "In contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."
Nice to see the government can still get some things right.
[ June 17, 2008, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Javert ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Cool!
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
That's awesome. Now if they can just loan those justices to Utah for a week or so...
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
AWESOME!
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Those were Republican appointed judges as well. Now let's just hope that no one will buy their bid for an amendment on the November ballot.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The polling I've seen says that the majority of citizens do not support such an amendment. The data is a bit old though, and I hope that this decision doesn't galvanize support in that direction.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Does this retroactively restore the marriages that were done in San Francisco and cancelled by the state? Did they order the state to start registering same sex marriages?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Good. Because it should be Overturned.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Does this retroactively restore the marriages that were done in San Francisco and cancelled by the state? Did they order the state to start registering same sex marriages?
I'm not so sure about that. Weren't those done before the state constitution was amended to include gender/sexual orientation on the list of things it's illegal to discriminate against?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Wonderful!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
[whisper]
Alright, now that we've tricked them into this, we can start working on making marrying animals legal too. Mwahahahaha!
[/whisper]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lisa: No, those people will have to get re-married.
It's a bit to early to celebrate. Anti-equality groups will be pushing for an injunction until November. We have to worry about an amendment then, and of course, there will probably be amendment attempts every cycle till they get bored and give up (or they win =(
The fight for equal rights is still on, and we still have to fight at the federal level. As far as the Feds are concerned gay marriages in CA and MA don't count. IRS, Gov't pensions, Social Security, etc.
In the mean time, one of my co-workers got a call from her girlfriend... Or should I say Fiancee'? =)
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Woohoo! I see your point, Pix, but this is still a step in the right direction surely Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
Does anyone know if California has a law like MA, where you aren't allowed to come from a state which doesn't allow your marraige, and get married there?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
sw: You can be a non-CA resident and get married in CA.
However, it doesn't do you any good if your own state doesn't recognize your marriage.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It might give you grounds for a court challenge under the full faith and credit clause. I remember there was quite an uproar some years ago when it seemed like Hawaii might legalize same-sex marriage. I read a couple of articles with headlines like "Tiny islands seeks to impose will on entire US! ZOMG!"
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The Defense of Marriage Act would keep that from happening, unless the DoMA itself was stuck down. Personally, I don't think a mere law should get to trump the Constitution, but SCOTUS hasn't reviewed it yet.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Congrats to your co-worker and fiancee, Pix!
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I find threads like this...difficult.
Should I wander out without saying anything so as not to offend anyone?
I think the courts got it wrong; I strongly disagree with the court's rationale. Furthermore, I disagree with granting marriage rights to homosexual couples on an ideological basis. And I feel the need to say that, since I don't want other Hatrackers who also believe that to feel isolated and marginalized, as I did when I read all the responses thus far.
Not that I have a problem with anything that's been said in the thread; it's all very understandable and even laudable. Certainly if the judgment had gone the other way I'd be similarly effusive. But it's hard to feel like something I believe in quite strongly is so abhorant to so many other Hatrackers.
*wanders away, conflicted*
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm actually a little ambivalent about this. I read the court's decision, and I found some of the arguments a bit iffy.
Yes, 61% of the citizens of California voted to ban same-sex marriage 8 years ago. But that's a long time, socially speaking. It's two presidential terms. Society has changed since then. And in fact, the California legislature has since then passed a law legalizing same sex marriage. Twice, in fact. The governor vetoed it both times.
Critics of this decision can't say, "This should have been done by the legislature", because the legislature did do it. The actual effect of this ruling turns out to be no more than the overturning of a governor's veto. Same sex marriage enjoys popular support in California through the elected law makers. Now a second of the three branches of California government is getting behind it, and they're doing it for the simple reason that the discriminatory ban against it is, in their view, contrary to the terms of the California constitution.
There's an amendment initiative on the ballot for this November. If the people of California don't want same sex marriage to be legal -- if they want to perpetuate the discrimination -- they have that power. If you consider the people to be a fourth branch of government, they're going to weigh in on the issue in less than 6 months. My guess is that they're going to go with the legislature and the judiciary. Leaving only the governor (who has actually said that he opposes such an amendment -- boy, he really wants to have it both ways) in opposition.
Why should it continue to be illegal when there's this kind of support for it?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lisa: I'm totally worried about the amendment thing. We could lose that and then we'd be farther back then we were. If an amendment passed, then we would have to admend the constitution to overturn that. I think we'd be looking at least one more generation of LBGs who had to refer to their "partner" instead of their "spouse."
Peterjones: You'll forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for one who wishes to deny people equal marriage rights on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Avid: Bill Clinton's DOMA is not unconstitutional, unfortunately. The constitution specifically gives the power to regulate agreements between the states, including marriages.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Peterjones: You'll forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for one who wishes to deny people equal marriage rights on the basis of their sexual orientation.
My intent in posting wasn't to elicit sympathy; it was to let my voice be heard and perhaps lessen the feelings of alienation in those who, like me, weren't celebrating the ruling.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Peterjones: You'll forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for one who wishes to deny people equal marriage rights on the basis of their sexual orientation.
My intent in posting wasn't to elicit sympathy; it was to let my voice be heard and perhaps lessen the feelings of alienation in those who, like me, weren't celebrating the ruling.
Feel free to explain your feelings and your reasons for disagreeing. If you like, that is. It's much better to understand the reasons behind the opinions of others, and in that way it perhaps becomes easier to come to a consensus of some kind.
Perhaps I should go first?
Despite not being homosexual, I think allowing same-sex marriage is the only decent thing to do. Marriage is a right of our country, whatever else it may be in different religions and ideologies. And the rights of our country need to be granted to all citizens, regardless of color, creed or sexuality.
Now, I understand that many people are against same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Which is fine. But this isn't a religious question, it's a legal one.
Because tomorrow I could go out and get married to a woman without any religious connection to either the ceremony or the marriage contract. We could be wed outside any church or place of worship and have the ceremony conducted by a completely secular official.
As long as that is the way it is, the religious opinion is (or should be) inconsequential.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You'll forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for one who wishes to deny people equal marriage rights on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Phrasing the issue like that is like saying that being pro-choice is being in favor of the murder of unborn children or that being pro-life is being in favor of having the government steal a woman's right to control her own body.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I personally applaud the decision to overturn the ban, though I do agree some of the reasons were iffy.
I could insert my personal beliefs on why I support the decision to overturn, but I'll go with some of my more generic ones. I believe that if the government is going to extend benefits and protections to couples who wish to engage in a contractual commitment to each other, I don't think there should be a worry as to what their sex/sexual orientation is. I personally believe that there is no strong secular reason as to why to ban homosexual marriage, and it is also my belief that the government ought to remain secular within its laws so long as it doesn't infringe upon religious beliefs. (With some exception, I do believe in the balance test of benefit of religious freedom to societal welfare.) Thus, I see no reason why the government can't extend legal recognition to homosexual marriage. If there's a church that refuses to admit homosexual marriage, that's fine, if you don't believe in homosexual marriage, that's fine. But to those who do wish to be married in the eyes of the law, regardless of their sex, should have that right.
All of that said, SenojRetep, I hope that we haven't alienated you and your opinion. I'm glad that there's opposition to this idea, I think that there should always be some dissent to a decision. Without it, there is not a check back against the idea. A subject such as this should be a place of civil discourse where different ideas are allowed to compete in a conducive manner. While I may disagree with your opposition to California's overturn, I do support you in expressing your opinion. Please, don't feel compelled to stay silent because of seemingly overwhelming support against what you believe.
Edit: Small change for clarification 'For those who wish to be married' => 'for those who wish to be married in the eyes of the law,'
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm also glad of the overturn.
But, Senoj, as Voltaire is said to have proclaimed- "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
As long as it's said civilly. Which you did.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm okay with this. I'm not jumping for joy because I don't think this is set in stone yet, as it could be overturned in November. But I have to wonder if they will actually go through with it.
I'm also curious as to the Governor's position. He's opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it, but he vetoes a legislative measure to legalize it? Wha? He loves the status quo that much?
My own view on the whole thing? I'll paraphrase what I said the last time this discussion was brought up:
"None of the secular benefits (survivor benefits, tax benefits, healthcare benefits and rights, etc) come from the Bible, they come from the State....legal rights weren't laid down by God, they were created by the US Government, and therefore should be accessible to every citizen of this country regardless of religion."
As an aside, I think the best solution, mentioned by many before me, is to do away entirely with marriage as sanctioned by the state. Everyone gets a civil union. If you want to get married, head to a church.
[ May 16, 2008, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Not that I have a problem with anything that's been said in the thread; it's all very understandable and even laudable. Certainly if the judgment had gone the other way I'd be similarly effusive. But it's hard to feel like something I believe in quite strongly is so abhorant to so many other Hatrackers.
*wanders away, conflicted*
I'd just like to weigh in as well and let everyone know that I'm a racist. Yep. Totally racist, and I'm happy for those of you that like other races, but it's just not for me. You know?
:wanders away, looking for cookies:
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Wow, you are a jerk.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Let me just say that civil rights should (almost) never been in the hands of popular vote.
If popular vote were the deciding factor blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't be able to vote.
(let us remember that Karl Rove came out the day after all those anti-gay amendments and said it was basically a ploy to get out the ultra conservative votes to keep Bush in office. They were/are playing people's bigotry to keep themselves in power.)
All hail the civil rights victory!!!
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Here is a letter that my friend Natasha wrote to our Michigan governor after hearing about the Cali Supreme Court decision. She and her wife are looking to move to a more gay friendly State or even Canada... much to my sorrow as they are friends I can claim as family and will miss them dearly:
quote:Dear Governor Granholm,
I have a simple question that I believe needs to be addressed here in Michigan. How long will Michigan continue to support discrimination and how long will you as the governor continue to stand idolly by as Michigan families are stripped of vital health care coverage? Proposal 2 was a wrong decision that could have been overturned. Now families of gay and lesbians are being denied health care coverage for their families. Recently the California Supreme Court rulled that discrimination based on sexual orientation in marriage was wrong. When will Michigan come to the same rightful conclusion? I believe the time is NOW!
In a time when Michigan is hemorrhaging jobs and talent, waving a banner of discrimination is not the answer. Why should educated and talented workers remain in a state that does not honor their basic human rights? Why should these people commit to weather difficult economic times when their states has codified hate into it's constitution? Equal human rights should never be a matter of a popularity contest (proposal 2), they should be upheld because they are the right thing to do.
I am asking you, governor Granholm, to do the right thing and reverse hateful legislation and protect Michigan families.
[ May 16, 2008, 05:11 AM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:He's opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it, but he vetoes a legislative measure to legalize it?
The was an unambiguously worded ballot proposition banning gay-marriage, and it convincingly passed a general election. I think this is kind of like Brown v. Board of education, and after watching the mixed results of that decision, my feelings are duly complicated. The good thing is, the state can't make churches marry gay couples, so it's not as intrusive as desegregation. I'm curious to see how it plays out, but I'm not a fan of the law overturning a popular vote. I'm a guilt and shame guy. I'd rather the political leaders, including judicial leaders, summon the courage the wag their fingers at the electorate. But short of that sort of political courage and leadership, I guess this is better than leaving the gays out in the cold. "California is a big tent state...just try to ignore the armed guards at the door."
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB]I'm also curious as to the Governor's position. He's opposed to a constitutional amendment banning it, but he vetoes a legislative measure to legalize it?
He vetoed the legislative measure because he felt it conflicted with the referendum on the issue -- but he said he'd respect the Supreme Court's judgment on whether the referendum's position was constitutional.
I think Arnold's position has been consistent, in favouring proper procedure.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Pixiest: You're totally right. I thought the Constitution had a specific rule about recognizing marriages performed in other states and overseas, but it's not there. In that case, one law can change another law so I guess it is what it is.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Government should not be in the business of recognizing (or not recognizing) marriages in the first place. People ought to be able to designate whomever they wish to be heir / beneficiary / 'next of kin', etc. And most of those can already be accomplished via wills, contracts, powers of attorney, and so on.
Government declaring that two same-gender people are legally "married" no more makes it true than if it declares a living person to be legally "deceased."
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: Wow, you are a jerk.
Correction: racist jerk. Don't judge!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: after hearing about the Cali Supreme Court decision.
Just please don't say Cali. It's super annoying non-Californian-but-wish-I-could-be jargon. Possibly as bad as the abominable "Frisco."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Government declaring that two same-gender people are legally "married" no more makes it true than if it declares a living person to be legally "deceased."
It makes it true if there is a legal, government sanctioned contractual partnership called "marriage". Which there is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You'll forgive me if I don't have much sympathy for one who wishes to deny people equal marriage rights on the basis of their sexual orientation.
Phrasing the issue like that is like saying that being pro-choice is being in favor of the murder of unborn children or that being pro-life is being in favor of having the government steal a woman's right to control her own body.
Actually, no, it isn't.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: I think this is kind of like Brown v. Board of education, and after watching the mixed results of that decision, my feelings are duly complicated. The good thing is, the state can't make churches marry gay couples, so it's not as intrusive as desegregation. I'm curious to see how it plays out, but I'm not a fan of the law overturning a popular vote.
I am. Especially when the law decides that the popular vote has enacted a measure which violates the state's constitution, a document written by and ratified by duly elected representatives of the people in that state. There is a very, very good reason why the courts have the right to make this decision, and it is because the constitution is the framing document, to which all our laws must adhere. You can change that constitution if the change is overwhelmingly supported, but guess what? The people who have been pushing this pro-discrimination stupidity are never going to gain the majority necessary to do that(least of all permanently)- so we already have a law, and it is the court's job to decide how that law applies.
To me, quite frankly, gay discrimination is just as reprehensible and inexcusable as racial discrimination. I am thankful that we, at least in California, are starting to come around to the idea that gays are not going to topple society or "the institution of marriage," that couldn't be any worse of anyway.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:we, at least in California, are starting to come around to the idea that gays are not going to topple society or "the institution of marriage...
If that were true, the citizens of California would not have enacted a ban on gay marriages.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Did I say "have come around completely?" No I did not say that. I said, we are starting to come around, and I think that's true- I have personally sensed a deep shift from even 10 years ago, but my age is a factor.
Besides, your argument doesn't follow. What makes you so sure that the ban went through for no other possible reason than that people in California believe that gays will destroy society? Is there no room for the idea that the ban itself is indicative of a reactionary movement against what may soon become, or may have already become the California mainstream? can you think of no law ever passed that was passed against the mainstream? How about prohibition?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I said, we are starting to come around, and I think that's true...
But this particular ruling is not proof of that. In fact, that this particular ruling is necessary contradicts that claim.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Government declaring that two same-gender people are legally "married" no more makes it true than if it declares a living person to be legally "deceased."
It makes it true if there is a legal, government sanctioned contractual partnership called "marriage". Which there is.
There's also a legal status called 'dead', which can be applied accurately (to people who really are dead), or inaccurately (to people who are alive). The legal recognition doesn't change the reality.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: There's also a legal status called 'dead', which can be applied accurately (to people who really are dead), or inaccurately (to people who are alive). The legal recognition doesn't change the reality.
Are you suggesting that a gay couple that gets legally married are somehow not married?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I said, we are starting to come around, and I think that's true...
But this particular ruling is not proof of that. In fact, that this particular ruling is necessary contradicts that claim.
It does not. This ruling does not lend particular support to my claim (I didn't intend to say that it did), but neither does it contradict the claim. The ruling is a matter of legal interpretation- it reflects an element of the law that pro-discrimination activists will find it very difficult to change, (because ultimately not enough people want it to be changed) and that is where I believe that gay marriage will eventually win out. Not pretty, but neither was the end of segregation in schools.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: There's also a legal status called 'dead', which can be applied accurately (to people who really are dead), or inaccurately (to people who are alive). The legal recognition doesn't change the reality.
Are you suggesting that a gay couple that gets legally married are somehow not married?
Yes. This is one reason opponents of same-sex marriage perceive it as at attack on marriage -- i.e., changing the millennia-old universally understood definition of the word, apparently to serve a political/ideological agenda.
Posted by IcedFalcon (Member # 11593) on :
The gay-marraige thing is going on here as well as a ban on casinos, abortions, etc. Its all about religon here. If marrying gays bothers you then simply dont do it. The right is choice.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
You know, Irregardless, that people argued the same thing about people who were A) not Married in the "Official" Church, and later B) married to someone of a different nationality, race or religion.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Senoj, I feel for you, and back when the MA amendment fight was going on, I sent an email to supporting her vote to not approve the amendment. I also stated that I wouldn't necessarily support my church if they recognized same-sex marriage (which is true, I'm on the fence on that). It was my way of reminding the politicians not to overstep their bounds.
What frustrated me (in MA) was the way the amendment supporters tried to frame the issue as one of political process, rather than ideology. Except that at no point had the political process been subverted. When the amendment wasn't voted on, due to the convention being closed prior to it coming to the floor, there were rules that were followed to make it so. And when the vote was taken, and it didn't pass, the proper process had occurred. Now, people complained of backroom deals, but look at it this way: the fact that these backroom deals worked strongly suggests that the the citizen's representatives decided school and road funding was more important than barring homosexuals from legal marriage. Obviously they weren't such strong supporters of the amendment to begin with, IMO.
Of course, I've really diverged from the thread topic. Congrats to California, and to two guys I know who will likely take advantage of this, which should help their chances at adopting a very lucky child.
-Bok
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I'm suspicious of the timing of this announcement. And since the conventional wisdom is that it will scare out conservative voters, it almost seems like they must be behind it. Could they really be that evil, though? To manipulate their chattel by bringing about what they fear most?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I've always wondered if instead of calling it 'gay marriage' they would have just asked for a 'civil union' that had all the same legal definitions as a traditional marriage then maybe all of this wouldn't be such a big deal. In my very unscientific survey of people I asked who are against gay marriage they had no problems with a gay civil union that had the same legal definitions as marriage. We'll never know though...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: Yes. This is one reason opponents of same-sex marriage perceive it as at attack on marriage -- i.e., changing the millennia-old universally understood definition of the word, apparently to serve a political/ideological agenda.
Well, perhaps we should go back to that millennia-old universally understood definition of the word.
When marriage was a contract between two men, passing ownership of a woman and some goods between them.
Or perhaps you meant the age-old definition of marriage making a contract of one man and as many women as he liked.
Wait a minute...it almost looks like the definition of marriage has changed over time.
Hmmm...nah, can't be. Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Pook, I too am worried about the timing.
Is this something that is just a plan to give McCain the California Electors, or will O'bama's popularity drive the amendment into the dust?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
DarkKnight, separate but equal has a history of not working out too well in the end, in the USA. To make it equitable, we'd likely have to convert all heterosexual marriages to civil unions, and you'd have the same objections about "taking away our marriage!" as you do now.
-Bok
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Pooka - So evil conservative voters passed this to get evil conservative voters against it? Or maybe you are saying evil conservatives passed this to get all the other conservatives (we all know conservatives are either total idiots or completely evil) to take to the streets and do what they are told to do? Seriously?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Seriously. I am a conservative, and I've been very vocal in my opposition to gay unions. I take this all very seriously.
It actually occurred to me when it happened in MA. I guess I don't see the Republican Party as having the corner on righteousness, is the thing.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Bokonon - I don't think it would go that way. I think in the end civil unions, once recognized by all states and given the same legal definitions as marriage would in a short amount of time become 'marriage' and would be completely interchangeable without as much anger over losing 'traditions'. People don't change do sudden changes well, it takes time. But that is just my opinion, there is no real way to prove it. (edit: because there is no x in recognize!)
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Javert, I've found that when people talk about the "Historical" or "Universally held" beliefs or definitions, they are really meaning those definitions that they were taught.
Marriage has had many different definitions over many different cultures and over many different times. Women have been considered everything from Master of the home to property, arrangements have historically been made by parents, guardians, or the ruling government. Polygamy has been honored around the world historically, while historically any woman just entering puberty is eligible to be a bride, while infertility were grounds for divorce.
Got to love those good old days.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:we, at least in California, are starting to come around to the idea that gays are not going to topple society or "the institution of marriage...
If that were true, the citizens of California would not have enacted a ban on gay marriages.
First of all, that was 8 years ago. Times change. Second of all, it only passed because California's domestic partnership laws were so good.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: There's also a legal status called 'dead', which can be applied accurately (to people who really are dead), or inaccurately (to people who are alive). The legal recognition doesn't change the reality.
Are you suggesting that a gay couple that gets legally married are somehow not married?
Yes. This is one reason opponents of same-sex marriage perceive it as at attack on marriage -- i.e., changing the millennia-old universally understood definition of the word, apparently to serve a political/ideological agenda.
Actually, the idea of government registered marriages is not "millenia-old". If it bothers you to have a government that isn't supposed to be run according to religious beliefs registering marriages impartially, the answer is for them to get rid of the government registration. It isn't to perpetuate the discrimination.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hahaha, "welcome to Hatrack you're wrong."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I've always wondered if instead of calling it 'gay marriage' they would have just asked for a 'civil union' that had all the same legal definitions as a traditional marriage then maybe all of this wouldn't be such a big deal. In my very unscientific survey of people I asked who are against gay marriage they had no problems with a gay civil union that had the same legal definitions as marriage. We'll never know though...
You should read the court's decision. I hear people saying all the time that gays "shouldn't flaunt it". "Why do they have to talk about it all the time". And yet, if the state calls the status "marriage" for opposite sex couples and "civil unions" for same sex couples, they pretty much force people to out themselves. Sometimes in really inappropriate circumstances.
The court's decision took note of that. If the state is using the term "marriage", it should use it impartially, and without any regard whatsoever to the religious use of the term.
Not to mention the fact that there are religions in which same sex marriages are performed. To have the state insist on a religious definition that doesn't recognize same sex marriage as marriage is to have the state pick one religion over another. And that's most certainly against the Establishment Clause.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Or perhaps you meant the age-old definition of marriage making a contract of one man and as many women as he liked.
I'd forgotten about this, but it's true. That's why in Attic Greek, women were married and men marry. Women were the passive object in the process.
[ May 16, 2008, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Could they really be that evil, though? To manipulate their chattel by bringing about what they fear most?
It's possible. That's how I've felt about the GOP for a while-- that the social issues they use to sway a certain voter really don't matter to the core party.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
Well having read through the thread I was considering not commenting and standing in silent agreement with Senojretep. However, after seeing the way his comment was lambasted (along with his character) I feel like I should at least step forward and show that there are like minded individuals. This is in no way to put myself on a pedestal or lecture from a podium.
However, it seems to me that whenever there is a thread like this one, like-minded individuals seem to cluster and congregate there and agree with each other, chasing off anyone with a dissenting opinion.
My view on this issue is that marriage is between a man and a woman, an institution meant for the propagation of our race. Both in purely physical (procreative) terms and in environmental (upbringing) terms.
More later, but I have to go now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
'Meant' by whom?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: My view on this issue is that marriage is between a man and a woman, an institution meant for the propagation of our race. Both in purely physical (procreative) terms and in environmental (upbringing) terms.
My partner and I have a wonderful 8 year old daughter, who would not have been born had we not determined to have a child. Our union therefore resulted in procreation.
On the other hand, I know of childless couples. Some by choice and some not. Some who knew they were infertile or had chosen not to have children before they married. Should they have been prevented from marrying?
In Jewish law (though exceptions are made), if a couple has not been able to have children for 10 years, the man is supposed to divorce his wife and remarry. Do you think that's how the government should work it? Either produce offspring, or dissolve the marriage? I mean, if procreation is the be-all and end-all of marriage.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: after hearing about the Cali Supreme Court decision.
Just please don't say Cali. It's super annoying non-Californian-but-wish-I-could-be jargon. Possibly as bad as the abominable "Frisco."
LOL Sorry... Actually I just didn't want to spell out the whole word. And I don't want to live in Cali anyway, I'm a Michigan loyalist. Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I find threads like this...difficult.
Should I wander out without saying anything so as not to offend anyone?
I think the courts got it wrong; I strongly disagree with the court's rationale. Furthermore, I disagree with granting marriage rights to homosexual couples on an ideological basis. And I feel the need to say that, since I don't want other Hatrackers who also believe that to feel isolated and marginalized, as I did when I read all the responses thus far.
Not that I have a problem with anything that's been said in the thread; it's all very understandable and even laudable. Certainly if the judgment had gone the other way I'd be similarly effusive. But it's hard to feel like something I believe in quite strongly is so abhorrent to so many other Hatrackers.
*wanders away, conflicted*
You are right to voice your opinion, and you are right to speak out on behalf of other Hatrackers who hold similar opinions.
But we must look at what is at the heart of your opinion, and ask how those opinions can be fit into the public arena, and more importantly, how they can be fit into the secular political arena.
I'm going to assume that you are objecting on moral grounds and that those moral grounds are founded in religion. Consequently, you are free to hold those beliefs, but YOUR ARE NOT free to force those beliefs into the political arena. Though of course, you are free to express your views, and engage in public discussion, and have your views taken into consideration.
But we simply can not allow religion to dictate law. There are a very many religions that take no more than an oddly curious attitude toward same sex couplings. Why should your religious beliefs override their religious beliefs. That's why we try our best to keep religion out of politics, because to allow it in, invariably forces one religious view as law to override many other contrasting religious views.
For example, the Catholics, more or less, don't believe in divorce. While a Catholic can be legally divorces anywhere, they are not considered divorced by the Catholic Church. Is it fair to force the Catholic view onto everyone else as a matter of law? Should their views dictate life for everyone else - Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic, Protestant, agnostic, atheist?
Since when do the religious views of a few dictate law to the majority?
The question is simply, regardless of your personal beliefs, can you think of any justifiably legal reason to deny standard rights to a select group of people who are otherwise law abiding?
Your religious views simply can't dictate enforcement of law, nor can you dictate your religious and moral views as law itself.
Because if your religion can say it's wrong, can the overwhelming majority of non-Christian religions then overrule you on shear numbers alone?
You are certainly free to hold your moral and religious view, and you are certainly free to express those views in the public arena in hopes that they will influence decisions. But, really, you can not hope or expect you personal moral and religious views to dictate matters of law to a vast majority of people who do not share your beliefs.
I welcome your input, just as I welcome the input of people saying that 'Harry Potter' is anti-religion, but I draw the line when you try to force that view as a means of controlling the actions and beliefs of everyone else.
Yes, make your voice heard in the public arena, but don't expect to make your religion a matter of law. You may personally feel that 'marriage' is exclusively between a man and a woman, and I support your religious and moral belief in that.
But the question is, once again, is there any LEGAL reason to deny common rights to a select group of people that you personally don't like?
My grandmother (a Norwegian) didn't like Swedes, so maybe we should forbid all people of Swedish decent from getting married?
Certainly, you can see the folly of that, but how is that any different that forbidding 'gay' people from forming legal unions. For preventing them from access to rights and benefits enjoyed by all others?
This, in my mind, is a purely legal issue, independent of any moral or spiritual beliefs.
Absolutely, your moral and spiritual beliefs should guide and control your own actions, but they should not dictate to the world.
Again, and knowing I'm repeating myself, this is purely a legal question. Can we reasonable select a small group of otherwise law-abiding people, and deny them common rights simply because we don't like them?
Really relishing the debate, but reminding the other side that they must debate in the context of the discussion.
Steve/bboyminn
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Pook, I too am worried about the timing.
Is this something that is just a plan to give McCain the California Electors, or will O'bama's popularity drive the amendment into the dust?
Soooo... they give me a right to marry just to take it away later?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Great post BlueWizard!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
However, it seems to me that whenever there is a thread like this one, like-minded individuals seem to cluster and congregate there and agree with each other, chasing off anyone with a dissenting opinion.
Part of that may be because we've had this argument many times before, and a) we can all rattle off our opinions quickly, and b) dissenters who have been through this before may be hesitant to enter the thread in the first place.
Personally I like it when old arguments come up again, especially when new members are around to add different perspectives.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I remember when the preponderance of posters here was on the other side of the issue from me.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Boots: I almost quit Hatrack the first time I was here because of that. David Bowles talked me into staying.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm going to assume that you are objecting on moral grounds and that those moral grounds are founded in religion. Consequently, you are free to hold those beliefs, but YOUR ARE NOT free to force those beliefs into the political arena.
There's really no reason to claim that religiously based beliefs are the ONLY beliefs that need to be guarded against.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
While I'm at it, what are the determinations a legal system should go through in order to determine whether a moral belief becomes a law?
How do you think a system can/should distinguish between a law based on religious moralism and say, secular human moralism?
Would such an evaluation even be fair?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: While I'm at it, what are the determinations a legal system should go through in order to determine whether a moral belief becomes a law?
How do you think a system can/should distinguish between a law based on religious moralism and say, secular human moralism?
Would such an evaluation even be fair?
Harm. Plain and simple.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Philo, Senjo, don't leave.
We will continually be bickering to each other unless we take the time to actively consider the opposing points of view.
Because of past threads like this I've gotten to know many of the reasons why people are against the notion of gay marriage, and can no longer discount such people as "homophobic zealots."
Philo you state that you think that marriage has two purposes, the creation and the upbringing of children.
Lisa already brought out the argument that if marriage is only for the creation of children than any childless marriage is by its nature a false one.
The upbringing is another question. Why is bringing up children in a gay house bad for the children?
And then there is the one thing that everyone seems to avoid, the big question.
Love.
Are we not taught that Love is the answer, the reason for marriage?
Do you believe its impossible for two women or two men to be in Love?
Love conquers all, even gender.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
How do we define harm?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:And then there is the one thing that everyone seems to avoid, the big question.
Love.
Are we not taught that Love is the answer, the reason for marriage?
Do you believe its impossible for two women or two men to be in Love?
Love conquers all, even gender.
I don't think it's the government's responsibility to decide whether or not to validate a couple's love.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: How do we define harm?
Using observation, logic and common sense.
Which is why I am open to conversation. Harm can be argued.
Show me how two consensual adults of the same sex getting married harms you. There are scientific studies that have looked at this very question, I believe.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:And then there is the one thing that everyone seems to avoid, the big question.
Love.
Are we not taught that Love is the answer, the reason for marriage?
Do you believe its impossible for two women or two men to be in Love?
Love conquers all, even gender.
I don't think it's the government's responsibility to decide whether or not to validate a couple's love.
Correct. Which is why it should validate it for everyone or no one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've got no problem with those criteria. But someone-- using observation, logic, and common sense-- might come to a completely different conclusion about the harm possible with a redefinition of marriage than I might.
It's anything but simple, Javert.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Which is why [the government] should validate [marriage] for everyone or no one.
Is this what you meant, Javert?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Which is why [the government] should validate [marriage] for everyone or no one.
Is this what you meant, Javert?
Yes.
quote:But someone-- using observation, logic, and common sense-- might come to a completely different conclusion about the harm possible with a redefinition of marriage than I might.
If they can back that conclusion up with evidence, then the discussion begins.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Let the vague speculation and fear mongering begin!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
The secular danger of the acceptance of gay marriage is the fear of sudden social changes in an ongoing society. This is not a fear borne of religious thought, but of Change without consideration of the results of that change. It's not an idle or bigoted concern.
The truth is that legal gay marriage will upset society in many ways, and whether you approve or disapprove of it, you can't deny that many many people will be upset and angry. This will also affect society.
"That's how it's always been" is not necessarily a religious argument, nor one we should dismiss immediately.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor is it a sufficient argument.
[ May 16, 2008, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: While I'm at it, what are the determinations a legal system should go through in order to determine whether a moral belief becomes a law?
How do you think a system can/should distinguish between a law based on religious moralism and say, secular human moralism?
Would such an evaluation even be fair?
This is a very good point. Regarding religious moral law becoming Legal law, I think it hinges on a degree of universality. Regardless of religion we universally agree that you do not indiscriminately kill other, nor steal their property, nor cause the bodily harm. All religions would support those view, and they are sufficiently agreed upon to the extent that the fact that they are incorporated into religious canon should not bar them from being law. In a sense, while found in religion, the universally extend beyond religion.
But there are very specific religious belief that while valid in their religious foundation, can not be universally applied to all people. The Catholic /divorce example would be a good example. While Catholic believe this and can find religious doctrine and writing to back it up. Virtually all other religions can find doctrine and writing that counter that belief. Consequently, we can not impose the will and belief of a few onto those whose own religious belief are counter to that of the Catholics.
Now religious views and beliefs should indeed guide us in our personal lives, and we are certainly free to try to spread those view to others. But, we are not free to force those views on others. Your personal beliefs should not dictate my life.
As to some kind of test for when religious morality can justifiable be force into secular morality and law, that seem difficult.
On one hand you can not let the majority truly rule because that can, will, and frequently does stomp on the right of innocent minorities. However, the opposite of that is that the views and beliefs of a small minority should not be force on the majority in the interests of protecting that minority. Whatever test we use must be applied fairly and uniformly.
So, the courts must find some compromise that is uniformly fair and reasonable, and uncolored and unclouded by personal beliefs.
So, once again, I ask the core question, regardless of your personal beliefs and personal choices, it there any reasonable justification for selecting a specific group of people and denying them rights that are taken for granted by all?
More important, can you deny those right to a group simply because you don't like them?
I think very much, laws against homosexuality have been for that very reason; we don't like these people, so we are going to make what they do against the law.
Keep in mind that morality and legality are not one and the same. Many things are against the law that are not immoral, and many things that are religiously immoral are not against the law.
People want to make this discussion about everything that it is not. The religious say that is alter the definition and purpose of marriage, and from a religious aspect that is true. But from a legal perspective, again, is there any justification of selecting a small group of otherwise law abiding people and denying them a right.
Was it fair to deny women and blacks the right to vote? Certainly many people thought women and blacks were too stupid to vote. Was it fair to deny inter-racial marriage? Certainly many people didn't like inter-racial marriage, but is that justification to deny it?
Lots of people don't like the idea of what gay people do behind closed doors, but really, unless you are personally involved in it, everything that happens behind all closed doors is kind of icky.
If there is a greater moral crime in gay activity, it is not the crime of being gay, it is the crime of fornication and promiscuity. And the Moral Crimes of fornication and promiscuity apply to all people of all races, all religions, and all sexes and all ages. Yet, fornication and promiscuity, which are in my mind the greater crimes, are generally left to the individual in terms of law. Not totally, but mostly.
On the other hand, keep in mind that we do restrict the rights of some minorities and do so with the full consent of most of the public. For example, criminal felons do not have full citizen rights. By virtue of their crimes, some of the lifelong rights have been restricted. We do not give minors full citizen rights. Adults can choose to fornicate and be promiscuous at will, but we limit the nature and extent to which minor can engage in that activity. For example, a minor can not give informed consent to have sex with an adult.
So, on one had their is precedences for limiting the rights of some people. But again, in light of the existing and generally accepted limitations, can we justify selecting a group of people based on sexual orientation and restricting their rights?
You may certainly find it morally offensive, but is that enough to make it legally offensive.
Does anyone remember the TV show 'Kate and Allie' (1984) starring Jane Curtain. This was a show where two single/divorce women with children joined their households together to form a single family unit. I believe 'Allie' was played by Jane Curtain.
Now this wasn't a 'gay' show. These were two normal heterosexual women who were forced by circumstances to form a joint family unit. Despite the fact that they were clearly just that, a family unit, they could not benefit from being a family unit the way a typical couple could.
I could see them forming a 'civil union' in a circumstance like this which would have allowed them to share insurance benefits, to allow hospital visits, and perhaps even extended the power to make medical decisions, etc....
This is really very much of a side point, but the central point is, that I can see circumstance in which 'civil unions' seem reasonable for couple other than homosexual couples. Though I admit the point is very much of a side track.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I dislike the argument about rights and religious persecution. I feel like it is about entitlement and I don't think anyone is entitled to having the perks of a government sanctioned marriage (including straight folks). Instead the government must see giving the perks as in its self interest- creating a more stable society. I think that people arguing for same sex marriage need to answer that question- how does changing the system make it better? Personally, I think that there are many obvious answers to that question and therefore am in favor of ssm. But if I was unable to come up with a benefit to society, then I would not argue for it. I also think that people are more likely to respond favorably to this argument then if you disagree with me you are a hate filled bigot.
My ideal situation would be to make all unions civil unions. I also would like to see people in non sexual unions be able to take advantage of them. I like the buddy system. Having someone that is official in charge of taking care of things when you are unable to is a good thing. Marriage can be for the churches. Officially, we can all have partners- a nice gender neutral term.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
[QUOTE]Marriage can be for the churches.[/QUOTE} I'm unwilling to cede that to religion. If you're just using that as shorthand for "not the government" though, that's fine, but I'd appreciate the clarification.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I'm going to assume that you are objecting on moral grounds and that those moral grounds are founded in religion. Consequently, you are free to hold those beliefs, but YOUR ARE NOT free to force those beliefs into the political arena.
There's really no reason to claim that religiously based beliefs are the ONLY beliefs that need to be guarded against.
I agree with you about that 100%.
They are, however, the only ones that have a Constitutional Amendment forbidding them from being established into law.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The gay-marraige thing is going on here as well as a ban on casinos, abortions, etc. Its all about religon here.
I am very much against casinos being built in the next town over and it has nothing at all to do with religon.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
scholarette:
"My ideal situation would be to make all unions civil unions. I also would like to see people in non sexual unions be able to take advantage of them. I like the buddy system. Having someone that is official in charge of taking care of things when you are unable to is a good thing. Marriage can be for the churches. Officially, we can all have partners- a nice gender neutral term."
Oddly, I like this idea. In a sense, the government is not, and should not be, in the business of sanctifying marriage. It should be in the business of contract negotiations by which civil rights and responsibilities are defined, documented, and enforce.
Marriage, as in spiritual marriage, should be exclusively in the realm of the church.
I can see people getting spiritually married, but not legally married. In the matter of such a marriage, all arbitration would be in the hands of the church, and those individual would not be afforded the right and privileges afforded by law.
Equally, you could sign a contract which registers your rights and responsibilities from a legal stand point and affords the privileges that accompany such a legal contract, with out also obtaining the further addition of marriage.
Or, you could do both.
In matters of Marriage, it would be left to the individual church to decide who they would and would not marry and why. Keep in mind that Church Marriage would have no force of law; it would be arbitrated by the church.
Civil Unions would remain simply a matter of civil law that is applied in a uniform and reasonable fashion.
So, I agree, the State should be involved in civil contracts, not marriage, and marriage should be left to the churches.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The truth is that legal gay marriage will upset society in many ways, and whether you approve or disapprove of it, you can't deny that many many people will be upset and angry. This will also affect society.
This argument, and most others that are now made against gay marriage, were used to justify the laws we used to have against interracial marriage. Why are these arguments more valid in this situation?
[ May 16, 2008, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Actually, the idea of government registered marriages is not "millenia-old". If it bothers you to have a government that isn't supposed to be run according to religious beliefs registering marriages impartially, the answer is for them to get rid of the government registration. It isn't to perpetuate the discrimination.
I agree 100%. Government has no business in the matter. As far as governmental regulation goes, I believe any group of two or more consenting adults ought to be free to do whatever they want to each other, whenever they want, employing whatever tool/implements/utensils/substances they want. However, I deny that my taxes should be used to either endorse or license these activities (regardless of whether the participants are hetero-, homo-, bi-, tri-, quadro- or whatever else), or to officially proclaim things that simply aren't true, and that includes denying the correct definition of words.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Two interesting thoughts--
1) One favorite argument against Gay Marriage is that it will lead to a society that allows Polygamy or Bestiality. This slippery slope is a danger to be thwarted now.
Reading the last page of notes, however, it seems that denying Gay Marriage may lead to a slippery slope where all marriage is banned in favor of civil unions--something not on the conservative agenda.
Chris you seem to argue that Change is the problem, not what direction that change is going. I counter that gay marriage is not the change, but a sign that the change has come.
2) Adultery and Promiscuity are sins. If they are not crimes, they are certainly crime's second cousin, cause for denouncement and higher insurance rates.
The only way to be sexually active and not be promiscuous or to be committing adultery is to be married.
If you are gay, you can't be married.
Hence, if you are gay your only choice is abstinence.
For a man, this is moral castration.
It is illegal to punish a US citizen with Castration.
So either way, the poor guy is breaking the law or close to it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: [QUOTE]Marriage can be for the churches.[/QUOTE} I'm unwilling to cede that to religion. If you're just using that as shorthand for "not the government" though, that's fine, but I'd appreciate the clarification.
What I was thinking was more not the government and also the idea that each individual religion can decide what they want to count or not count. I didn't intend it to mean that an atheist couple could never call themselves married.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless: ... I deny that my taxes should be used to either endorse or license these activities (regardless of whether the participants are hetero-, homo-, bi-, tri-, quadro- or whatever else), or to officially proclaim things that simply aren't true, and that includes denying the correct definition of words.
Why is the way you define "marriage" the correct way? As has been pointed out already in this thread, marriage has meant many different things.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Can't each individual religion already decide what counts as a "real" marriage? I suppose some religious organizations that receive government funds may be compelled to provide benefits to the partners of "fake" marriages, but that's merely an administrative requirement and doesn't force the organization to recognize those relationships as being sanctioned by their doctrine. "I must give your gay partner health benefits" does not equate to "I believe homosexuality is moral."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that there is a fear that if the government sanctions ssm, religions will have to as well. My mother, for example, is fine with ssm as long as they don't make her church change their marriage standards. It doesn't hurt to say changing x won't change y.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not familiar at all with the law on this, but I don't think any church is required to marry anyone that they do not want to. Regardless, some of the SSM marriage legislation that I've seen has included a provision that churches not be required to perform these marriages or otherwise recognize them in non-secular contexts.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This argument, and most others that are now made against gay marriage, were used to justify the laws we used to have against interracial marriage. Why are these arguments more valid in this situation?
Haven't said they are. Haven't said I agree with them. Haven't said how much weight they should receive. But it is an argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature, which was what was being discussed when I posted it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
In that case I'd just submit that they are not very good arguments that when it comes to civil rights issues that most people would agree that these arguments are not sufficient.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But their existence disproves the assertion that the only reason anyone would be against gay marriage is because of religious beliefs, which was my point.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
You'll find very few people putting forth these secular arguments who don't *also* have religious arguments against SSM. These arguments are put forth in leui of the religious arguments because the religious arguments are indefensible in a secular government. So while these arguments are secular, their *cause* is religious.
Additionally, these arguments do not appear to have any merit. They are "the sky will fall" conjectures rather than reasoned conclusions based on data.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Actually Matt, I agree with Chris on this one.
While many people with Religious arguments against Gay Marriage exist, I find that the majority of arguments made against it are either non-religious, or weak in the religion.
Its Cultural.
They think gay sex is icky, they've been raised to think it is icky, and they don't like it so they look for any reason to be against it, whether that is a religious reason or a secular one, or just grabbing at straws.
Some don't want to be forced to witness two guys kissing.
I don't blame them as that is not a scene that I appreciate.
But I would rather turn my head than deny that such love could exist.
Some don't want to explain to their kids that what other people are doing is against their code of ethics, but is not illegal.
I don't want to explain to my children that something they may feel is illegal, or at least legally required to remain secondary.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, none of those reasons come anywhere close to reasons to legally ban ssm.
Can we ban all the things that I think are "icky"?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
*shrug* I think that gay sex is icky too. That's not a reason for me to actively oppose granting equal rights to those who practice it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: This argument, and most others that are now made against gay marriage, were used to justify the laws we used to have against interracial marriage. Why are these arguments more valid in this situation?
Haven't said they are. Haven't said I agree with them. Haven't said how much weight they should receive. But it is an argument against gay marriage that is not religious in nature, which was what was being discussed when I posted it.
Not all arguments are equal. Even opponents of same sex marriage realize how lame the secular arguments are. Pathetic, really. That's why they're so infrequently heard: people don't like being laughed at.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I think mushrooms are icky. Yet people use them to ruin so many otherwise wonderful italian dishes.
They FLAUNT their nasty repulsive mushrooms in my face!
I don't want to see it, I don't want to smell it and I sure as hell am sick of biting into a pizza and finding one hiding under the pepperoni.
BAN MUSHROOMS!!!!!!!!!
And while we're at it, WWE annoys the holy living hell out of me. It re-enforces a stereotype of men as disgusting, loud mouthed, vain glorious reprobates.
So let's ban that too.
ORRRRRR we could just realize that everyone is different, and that is a good and glorious thing. Philosophically, all our liberties stim from the fact that we're all different and like different things. If we were all the same, we would need no freedom. The government could give us a Happiness script when we were born and we'd never have to do any thinking or worrying or anything else, we'd just follow the script and have a happy boring life.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
I'd like to point out that legallising gay marriage in Canada has yet to cause implosion.
Of course, Canada is pretty different from the 'States. I was just reading yesterday about a Lutheran church in Newmarket ordaining a (married) gay man.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: ORRRRRR we could just realize that everyone is different, and that is a good and glorious thing. Philosophically, all our liberties stim from the fact that we're all different and like different things.
I don't see that as where our liberties stem from.
Since it was asked earlier, I want to point out my reasons for opposing SSM. I've given them in other threads. I oppose legal recognition of SSM because I don't recognize the validity of the relationship, and I believe marriage is nothing more than a recognition of the society of the validity of the relationship. Inasmuch as marriage is a social construct, I feel offended that the state forces me to give consent when I oppose it.
If you want to talk about other rights, real rights, like visitation and inheritance, I'm open to it. What I oppose, and will continue to oppose, is being compelled to mouth the words to an oath of acceptance when in my heart I reject it. I don't believe marriage is a "right" and I don't grant that "love is all you need."
On a side note, related to something interesting William Saletan wrote when gay marriage was first recognized in MA, what is the ideological basis for preventing siblings from marrying, if not the "ick" factor? The only argument I've heard not involving "ick" was about children, but happily technology has progressed to a point where that no longer needs to be an issue. I think there is as much ideological reasoning behind outlawing sibling marriage as there is gay marriage; should the state recognize siblings' "right" to marry?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: What frustrated me (in MA) was the way the amendment supporters tried to frame the issue as one of political process, rather than ideology. Except that at no point had the political process been subverted. When the amendment wasn't voted on, due to the convention being closed prior to it coming to the floor, there were rules that were followed to make it so. And when the vote was taken, and it didn't pass, the proper process had occurred. Now, people complained of backroom deals, but look at it this way: the fact that these backroom deals worked strongly suggests that the the citizen's representatives decided school and road funding was more important than barring homosexuals from legal marriage. Obviously they weren't such strong supporters of the amendment to begin with, IMO.
Sorry to post twice in a row.
I understand your interpretation; I didn't think it was crooked, but I thought it was pretty cowardly to bury it the way they did. I mean, support or oppose, but have the debate; hashing out these hot button issues is one of the primary functions of the legislature. And this seems like a generation-defining social issue. So while I understand that there is business to be done, firefighters to be paid, schools to be built, etc. I think the amount of time and public interest invested in the debate warranted a more transparent handling by the legislature.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:it there any reasonable justification for selecting a specific group of people and denying them rights that are taken for granted by all?
Heck, yes.
When a group of people's actions justify the denial of rights. Ala, Yearning for Zion.
quote:Chris you seem to argue that Change is the problem, not what direction that change is going.
I don't know that Chris was actually arguing for or against anything.
quote:If you are gay, you can't be married.
Hence, if you are gay your only choice is abstinence.
For a man, this is moral castration.
Wait-- are you saying that abstinence is moral castration? I don't follow you, Dan.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Some don't want to be forced to witness two guys kissing.
There was a time when propriety didn't allow men and women to be seen kissing in public (other than a quick peck goodbye at the train station). I think it was a good idea. Propriety and privacy are way underrated in today's society. I don't want to see anybody making out in public, gay or straight.
But whatever's ok for straight couples, I don't have any problem with it for gay couples. And if people don't want to allow gay marriage because it makes them feel icky, I gotta wonder why they don't feel icky when they see straight couples doing the same thing.
Posted by Philosofickle (Member # 10993) on :
While I don't agree with some of Senej's post, he makes a valid point with the sibling marriage analogy.
I recognize that using the unable to procreate argument would also make marriage between infertile heterosexual couples invalid, therefore I am willing to concede that that this argument is invalid in this case. (Although if we applied Immanuel Kant's law of universality [which by the way I find to be the best philosophical definition on how to define what is moral.] it would lead to the extinction of the race and thus be proven immoral)
Therefore, I will bring up the second purpose of marriage, the upbringing of children. In a closed society, you have stagnation. If everyone is the same, then there is never any innovation. A diverse society has been proven to advance much more quickly then a closed stagnant one.
A family is essentially a society, I don't know what the consequences would be if you had three boys raised exclusively by two men. Or even if you were a girl and being raised by two men. I don't know if there is a denial per se, but if I were raised by two women.
To quote my female friend sitting next to me. "If I were raised by two men, I would feel cursed to be a woman that my parents felt no attraction to. If at least one of them didn't love women, how could they love me?"
I'm not in anyway saying that parents should be sexually attracted to their children, but there is a validation there in knowing that at least one of them is especially attracted to your gender, and that the other one is your gender. I'm not promoting an Oedipus complex.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't know what the consequences would be if you had three boys raised exclusively by two men.
Your question presumes the two men are identical. Neither having strengths to bolster the other's weaknesses, neither having personality differences.
It also assumes there will be no other influences on the child's life whatsoever.
The question only makes sense, in fact, if you assume that all male-female set of parents provide the requisite male and female characteristics for "proper" child rearing.
To answer your female friend, I would point out that she would be raised by two men who loved her and who might understand her better than a heterosexual father might. But mostly I don't understand the question. All gay men hate women? Really? Gay men may not be physically attracted to women, but there can certainly be deep bonds love and affection in their relationships. And these hypothetical gay parents would love their child, hopefully, for exactly the same reasons any parent does.
Gay people have raised children, secretly and very openly, for a very long time. Check any of the many gay foster parent families and see how those children are turning out.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Philosofickle -
Where do single parents fit into your equation? Just curious.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:what is the ideological basis for preventing siblings from marrying, if not the "ick" factor?
Both of these relationships have produced children with special needs, although whether this resulted from their parents' biological proximity is unclear.
Some geneticists put the risk of producing a disabled child as high as 50%, but this is hotly debated. Opponents of the incest ban also argue there are double standards, noting that no-one would ban those with hereditary diseases from reproducing.
In some countries, the law has tried to take into account the risks while legalising incest in certain circumstances. In Brazil, an uncle and niece may have a relationship provided they undergo health checks.
In parts of the US, first cousins may marry if they are beyond reproductive age or ability.
This last bit is interesting precedent on the issue of marriage being for the purpose of reproduction. Seems like there should have been a stink if these states say it's ok for first cousins to get married as long as the man gets a vasectomy.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think when most of those laws were written that way, the possibility of volunary sterilization wasn't really on the radar.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Oh, and interestingly, a few states, or at least one, actually allow first-cousin marriage with two fertile partners, last I heard.
And actually, as long as that is a one-time event, not repeated, and there is no family propensity toward genetic disease, first-cousin marriage does not pose more of a risk than marriage between unrelated folk. It's only when cousin marriage is repeated generation after generation that the gene pool is likely to get "polluted." Thorough genetic screening before marriage is recommended, though, to make sure there aren't some recessive markers hiding in there that could cause problems.)
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Simple edit time:
"Since it was asked earlier, I want to point out my reasons for opposing miscegenation... I oppose legal recognition of miscegenation because I don't recognize the validity of the relationship, and I believe marriage is nothing more than a recognition of the society of the validity of the relationship. Inasmuch as marriage is a social construct, I feel offended that the state forces me to give consent when I oppose it.
If you want to talk about other rights, real rights, like visitation and inheritance, I'm open to it. What I oppose, and will continue to oppose, is being compelled to mouth the words to an oath of acceptance when in my heart I reject it. I don't believe marriage is a "right" and I don't grant that "love is all you need." "
Is this argument any worse, in any meaningful manner?
Perhaps law, and other people's rights, aren't to be based on what we like or dislike... but on freedom, instead?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I understand your interpretation; I didn't think it was crooked, but I thought it was pretty cowardly to bury it the way they did. I mean, support or oppose, but have the debate; hashing out these hot button issues is one of the primary functions of the legislature. And this seems like a generation-defining social issue. So while I understand that there is business to be done, firefighters to be paid, schools to be built, etc. I think the amount of time and public interest invested in the debate warranted a more transparent handling by the legislature.
I hear you, but it was debated in the general public. I don't know what the legislators of MA could have added to the discussion in that regard.
I feel for you, Senoj. I don't envy your position of being alienated in your own local society. I'm glad you've stuck around though. You're good people
-Bok
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: I feel for you, Senoj. I don't envy your position of being alienated in your own local society. I'm glad you've stuck around though. You're good people
-Bok
Thanks, Bok. The feeling's mutual.
Or are you just angling for an invite to our sweet new digs out in Lexington? Cause this house is awesome (it should be after all we went through to get into it).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A diverse society has been proven to advance much more quickly then a closed stagnant one.
I have to admit that I'm a little amused to see this used as an argument against same-sex marriage.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Wait-- are you saying that abstinence is moral castration? I don't follow you, Dan.
Abstinence != forced abstinence.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Here is the no-gay-marriage=moral castration argument.
The only Moral sex allowed is between a married couple.
So no sex until you are married.
But a gay man can never get married to another man, so that is no sex ever.
Ever.
Sure, he could have sex outside of marriage, but that would be sinful.
He could force himself to marry a woman, but if he loves another man that is living a lie, and every lie would be a sin.
Is it more sinful for a man to love another man, or for a man to live a lie?
Hence for a man to be moral and to be gay, he might as well be castrated.
Of course the solution is to get married in a church that performs such rights. Then he could be married, even if the state doesn't count it as such, and have sex and be moral.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
This isn't a logical argument, but the thread reminded me of something I heard last week on This American Life.
Wait for the stream to load completely (listen to the first act while you wait... it's hilarious.)
Cue to 39:40, where Act 4 starts.
It's a story told by Dan Savage, a gay man, about an experience he had with his adopted son. It's not specifically about gay parents vs. straight parents. But it's a sweet and funny story, and it's a good example of what a gay parent might really be like.
Decide for yourself, but it doesn't sound like the destruction of society to me.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: The U.S. is virtually alone among developed nations in outlawing marriage among first cousins. European countries have no such prohibition. In some cultures, particularly Islamic ones, first-cousin marriage is encouraged. Even in the U.S. laws forbidding the practice are far from universal. First-cousin marriage is currently illegal or restricted in 31 states. (Some states allow it if there's no chance of procreation--interesting in light of conservative opposition to gay marriage on the grounds that the institution's function is to produce children.) It's legal in the rest--and no, Kentucky and West Virginia aren't among the permissive ones. Try California and New York.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
Darth_Mauve's argument is exactly the one I'd give if I wanted to present a religious/moralist argument against gay marriage.
I think it may be important to stress that the state marriage is separate from the religious marriage, as has been touched upon. That is, a legal regognition of certain types of marriage that you would religiously reject is perfectly viable, and happens even sans the gay marriage issue.
For instance, in the Catholic Church, if a person marries, divorces, and remarries under the state law, and is not granted annulment by the Catholic Church, the Church does not recognize the second marriage, and would even claim the person is still bound by the first marriage, which the state dissolved. This is an example of a religion diverging heavily with the state interpretation of marriage, and it's done with a straight face.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: I recognize that using the unable to procreate argument would also make marriage between infertile heterosexual couples invalid, therefore I am willing to concede that that this argument is invalid in this case. (Although if we applied Immanuel Kant's law of universality [which by the way I find to be the best philosophical definition on how to define what is moral.] it would lead to the extinction of the race and thus be proven immoral)
Kant's law of universality doesn't apply here because marriage is not necessary for procreation (example: nearly every other animal species in existence).
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: Therefore, I will bring up the second purpose of marriage, the upbringing of children. In a closed society, you have stagnation. If everyone is the same, then there is never any innovation. A diverse society has been proven to advance much more quickly then a closed stagnant one.
A family is essentially a society, I don't know what the consequences would be if you had three boys raised exclusively by two men. Or even if you were a girl and being raised by two men. I don't know if there is a denial per se, but if I were raised by two women.
This is a tenuous argument. I disagree with your assumption that two men = "stagnant" while one man and one woman = "diverse". Even if I accepted those assumptions, it would not be fair to ban ssm on the basis of a thought experiment.
quote:Originally posted by Philosofickle: To quote my female friend sitting next to me. "If I were raised by two men, I would feel cursed to be a woman that my parents felt no attraction to. If at least one of them didn't love women, how could they love me?"
I'm not in anyway saying that parents should be sexually attracted to their children, but there is a validation there in knowing that at least one of them is especially attracted to your gender, and that the other one is your gender. I'm not promoting an Oedipus complex.
You claim that a "validation [exists] in knowing that at least one of [your parents] is especially attracted to your gender." I don't see a reason why this should be true. I know that I've never felt that way.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I'd like to point out to the Mormons that the same "tolerance" that you hate is the same "tolerance" from which you benefit. I have some Mormon-bashing friends, but I don't join in. Why? Because I know you guys, and I know the LDS church is probably no more shitty than any other organization of a similar size. How did I learn? Through being willing to listen. I listened. I'm not gay, but I hope you would be willing to do the same for gays who want to marry.
Posted by Temposs (Member # 6032) on :
steven, I don't think (most of) the LDS folks on this forum hate the "tolerance" you speak of, and I think there are plenty of people besides the LDS here that have legitimate concerns over the allowance of ssm in our society.
It really is ok for people to be concerned about the effect of a major change in policy on the quality of our society, and to argue for or against the proposed change. This is the process of civic discourse.
I also think the candor of the discussion on this thread demonstrates that everyone involved has been willing to listen to different viewpoints than their own. Making an appeal to "tolerance" is generally only helpful when this isn't the case.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Neutral Observation:
Both sides of this argument are using the same tactic, or perhaps its the reverse of the same tactic.
At first I labeled the "Leads to" as a slippery slope argument, not backed up with any facts that merit debate.
I was wrong.
It is a Comparative argument, the exact same definition argument that the other side uses when they mention inter-racial marriage.
We've heard the arguments that "If you allow gays to marry, then the xxx will be next." XXX has been Polygamists, Incest, Pedophiles, and yes--the famed bestiality / Goat.
These are not just Slipper Slope arguments, that this is the first step towards a distant disaster. This is an attempt to define homosexuality in the same category of deviant behavior, behavior of choice, that the others are perpetrators of.
The pro-marriage (I hesitate to use the initials SSM, since it is so close to S&M, a term for sexual deviance involving pain and humiliation. I wonder who has spent the most time championing those initials in order to sway the argument, but that is a post for another day.) people argue that the same reasons given to deny the marriages were used to deny inter-racial marriages, inter-faith marriages, and even cross tribal marriages centuries ago.
This is another attempt to define homosexuality, not as an optional behavior such as polygamy, but as a facet of a person, like race, nationality, or the faith you are born into.
Here we come to a standstill.
You can argue all you want about the appropriateness, safety, and health effects of bestiality, incest, and inter-racial marriages. Neither side will be convinced, because both sides have already cemented their own definition of homosexuality.
Until we can determine the true definition, is homosexuality a choice or an unchangeable facet of that individual, we won't come to any agreement.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"but there is a validation there in knowing that at least one of them is especially attracted to your gender, and that the other one is your gender. "
That's a very weird argument. I'm not married and I don't have children yet.
But one thing I do know is that my love for my children should by far exceed and be more obvious to them than my love for their *gender* in general.
If that female friend of yours needs to recognize her father's sexual attraction to women in general before she can recognize his paternal love for her, then something very weird and twisted is already happening...
quote:Until we can determine the true definition, is homosexuality a choice or an unchangeable facet of that individual, we won't come to any agreement.
I'm not convinced the choice-or-unchangeable is actually an important question at all, even though it tends to be presented as such by people in both sides.
What does it really matter if it's a choice or not? How does that affect anything -- other than perhaps some irrelevant discussions on the topic of sin, that shouldn't be injected in the issue of civil marriage anyway?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:What does it really matter if it's a choice or not?
That is the biggest question of all.
If you believe its a choice--I choose to do x, and the bible says x is a sin, then I am a sinner.
You can make x illegal if someone has a choice in it.
But if you believe that its a facet of their being, something they were born with, like eye-color, race, or gender, then its not a sin.
It is not a sin to be born black, or to be born in Canada, or to be born color-blind.
How could it be a sin to be born homosexual if it is something that is beyond choice.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Luckily, the United States doesn't recognize "sin" in its laws. And the Bible isn't part of the law either. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The sin isn't being homosexual, it is engaging in a homosexual act, just as it is a sin for straight people to have sex outside of marriage. I also know heterosexual people who due to their beliefs and circumstances believe that anything but a celibate life would be a sin. So, for religious people, whether or not homosexuality is a choice does not matter.
However, as Jhai says, sin isn't how we determine our laws, so it really doesn't matter.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Some thoughts:
Homosexuality probably has both genetic and learned components. Plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior regularly. Plenty of traditional tribes engage in homosexual behavior, and plenty of prison inmates do too. This shows us that it may be largely a waste of time to bother framing this as a moral issue.
The question then is, does making SSM legal cause harm?--because the question of harm is all we're left with.
I've only heard 2 credible arguments about this, and I see both of them as causing negligible harm. The first is the issue of disease. Well, guess what? SSM will probably encourage monogamy, and monogamy is an excellent defense against disease. Besides, we'll probably beat AIDS in the next 15-20 years. The second is the issue of negative population growth. This is a ridiculous argument. Why? Because plenty of lesbian couples have kids of their own through sperm donation. Hello, anybody ever heard of Melissa Etheridge? The argument that gay men would be less likely to have kids if there were SSM is ridiculous, because 1 man can inseminate thousands of women.
If there really is a large amount of demonstrable harm from SSM, I humbly submit it isn't from disease or population issues, that I can see. But whatever. People are going to engage in a certain amount of Chicken Little behavior, no matter what you do. Pretty much everybody does, some more than others. It's more an issue of life experience, socialization, and education, instead of intelligence. IMHO.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: Some thoughts:
Homosexuality probably has both genetic and learned components. Plenty of animals engage in homosexual behavior regularly. Plenty of traditional tribes engage in homosexual behavior, and plenty of prison inmates do too. This shows us that it may be largely a waste of time to bother framing this as a moral issue.
I don't see the connection between the presence of homosexual behavior in history, and that historical presence of homosexual behavior making it NOT a moral issue.
Of course there is a history of homosexual behavior. There must have been plenty of homosexuality around or within the Israelites; otherwise, why would anyone bother addressing it in the form of commandments not to engage in homosexual behavior?
*edited to add:
I ask this lightly--would you mind enlightening me as to how SSM will encourage monogamy?
In reading about this, I have heard that some gay male couple define monogamy differently than I define monogamy--that is, my version of monogamy means no sex with any non-spouse, EVER.
I have known some hetero married couples who have a looser definition of monogamy, i.e., infrequent "cheating" is acceptable, and I have read that this is more frequently how monogamy is practiced in male gay couples.
That kinda-sorta monogamy is a better protection against disease than promiscuity, but still not as sure as total monogamy.
But the bigger issue here is, how does having a legal recognition of marriage make a difference in whether G/L couples are monogamous?
The pictures I see and stories I read focus on G/L couples who stick by each other and love each other. They reiterate, "Our love knows no bounds."
If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
If for some reason my marriage wasn't recognized by the government, it wouldn't change my fidelity to my husband.
Also, Steven, I do hope we beat AIDS in the next couple of decades. Does that mean we can stop pouring money into AIDS research and use it for something else?
[ May 19, 2008, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I used the fact that many animal species seem to engage in homosexual behavior to create doubt about it being only choice. The fact that prisoners and traditional tribes often do it shows how it's something other than purely genetic/inborn/natural. I'm saying that framing the debate as a moral one seems mostly useless.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Marriage can be for the churches.
I'm unwilling to cede that to religion. If you're just using that as shorthand for "not the government" though, that's fine, but I'd appreciate the clarification.
What I was thinking was more not the government and also the idea that each individual religion can decide what they want to count or not count. I didn't intend it to mean that an atheist couple could never call themselves married.
I wouldn't even have asked except that I do know of people who were married in under secular terms, only to find that some people didn't consider them "really" married. Thanks for the clarification, scholarette. Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
But, Steven, violence is inborn/natural too. And yet that's a moral issue.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I've only heard 2 credible arguments about this, and I see both of them as causing negligible harm. The first is the issue of disease. Well, guess what? SSM will probably encourage monogamy, and monogamy is an excellent defense against disease. Besides, we'll probably beat AIDS in the next 15-20 years.
Actually, given the groups male-male couples, female-female couples, male-female couples, lesbians are in the lowest risk group for STDs of the three. Maybe opposite sex marriage should be reconsidered.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
If for some reason my marriage wasn't recognized by the government, it wouldn't change my fidelity to my husband.
At least part of it is about favoritism. People get certain benefits by being married. Why should two people who are in the exact same kind of relationship not receive the same benefits?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
That type of reasoning makes me want to
Anyways, it's a matter of equal rights, not love.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
Sure. Just as it's not required for a straight couple to marry. But the reasons to get married are exactly the same.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: I ask this lightly--would you mind enlightening me as to how SSM will encourage monogamy?
I should think that'd be obvious. Despite the fine job heterosexuals have done with the institution of marriage (cough, cough), the existence of a framework creates stability. In theory, at least, having to obtain a divorce to nullify a union means it isn't something to be done on a whim.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: In reading about this, I have heard that some gay male couple define monogamy differently than I define monogamy--that is, my version of monogamy means no sex with any non-spouse, EVER.
I have known some hetero married couples who have a looser definition of monogamy, i.e., infrequent "cheating" is acceptable, and I have read that this is more frequently how monogamy is practiced in male gay couples.
Some, maybe. But you just said that it's done that way by some opposite sex couples. So what's your point?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: That kinda-sorta monogamy is a better protection against disease than promiscuity, but still not as sure as total monogamy.
<blink> Excuse me? The only reason to be monogamous is to protect against disease? How sad...
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: But the bigger issue here is, how does having a legal recognition of marriage make a difference in whether G/L couples are monogamous?
It's no more a question than "how does having a legal recognition of marriage make a difference in whether straight couples are monogamous".
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: The pictures I see and stories I read focus on G/L couples who stick by each other and love each other. They reiterate, "Our love knows no bounds."
If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
Stop with the "redefining marriage" stuff. Was it redefining marriage when interracial marriage became legalized? No. Marriage has always been defined as two people who love each other solemnizing their union. Not "two people of the same race". Not "two people of the opposite sex".
Once upon a time, it was simply assumed that the "two people" were going to be of the same race. It only became an issue when that assumption was questioned. And once upon a time, it was simply assumed that the "two people" were going to be of different sexes". That's only become an issue now that the assumption is being questioned.
My religion doesn't permit same-sex marriage. I support that 100%, given the definition and purpose of marriage in Judaism. I'll never have a Jewish wedding, and that's fine with me. But the government which taxes me and which claims a right to rule me under the principle of freedom and equality for all citizens under the law is registering what it calls "marriage", which is not the same as what my religion calls marriage. And it is giving financial and legal favors to those who enter into that status. And I'll be damned if my taxes are going to be used to give you goodies that I'm not allowed to have as well.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: If for some reason my marriage wasn't recognized by the government, it wouldn't change my fidelity to my husband.
But you'd fight it.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"But, Steven, violence is inborn/natural too. And yet that's a moral issue."
State- and religion-sponsored violence go on all the time, and have for thousands of years. A good chunk of the Old Testament is about God telling the Jews to go whip some tail. Morality, at its heart, is about demonstrable harm. Religious organizations are not always able to change as fast as society changes these days or ever, but they still do change, and they have to.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But the government which taxes me and which claims a right to rule me under the principle of freedom and equality for all citizens under the law is registering what it calls "marriage", which is not the same as what my religion calls marriage. And it is giving financial and legal favors to those who enter into that status. And I'll be damned if my taxes are going to be used to give you goodies that I'm not allowed to have as well.
That is one of the best arguments posted here so far.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Prelude: sorry this post is so long. I started writing and just kept going. As with all my posts when I wax somewhat philosophical, I don't guarantee that I fully believe everything I've written below, or that upon request for clarification, I won't back-peddle (at least a little bit).
Re: my question regarding whether there is an argument against incest marriages other than the "ick" factor, the California decision includes this statement (pointed out over on the Convictions blog at Slate):
quote:"although the historic disparagement of the discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.
The court did not examine, to my knowledge (since I haven't read the full opinion, just snippets), what those potentially (I think that's a fascinating modifier they used) detrimental effects on a sound family environment are.
I gained another perspective about my personal reasons for opposing legalization for SSM from a somewhat unlikely source: the earlier comment that the abbreviation "SSM" reminded the poster of "S&M." For me, every time I read SSM I have a cognitive association with FSM. Exploring this further, I find that I associate the movement to gain legal recognition of same-sex unions with related movements, all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other, in general, and if they're not hurting each other they should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want. The definition of "hurt" seems very vague, but includes some forms (but not all) of emotional distress, financial loss, or physical pain. As a result, we see laws relating to (for example) theft, murder and other Christian sins not being challenged (there's obvious physical/financial harm) while we see laws based on consensual sex, profanity, or Sabbath-observance (where I'd say the harm is more subtle) being overturned and relegated to the historic dust heap.
My primary concern with all this is NOT that our society is becoming "less Christian" per se. It's not that I believe our society will implode (one of my favorite straw men from the pro-SSM contingent). It's the fundamental idea of broad, societal change.
On a deep level I am a conservative (not to be confused with a Conservative in the US political sense). I am sceptical of change; I think "progress" seldom leads to improvement. As such, my perception that we are willy-nilly changing the foundation upon which we base our laws and social norms is very troubling. It isn't fundamentally concerned with my being a Christian or not; it has more to do with me believing that history and tradition is, generally speaking, a good guide to a well-functioning society, and that no matter how logically presented or lengthily discussed, adoption of new societal norms will have long-lasting effects that are a priori unknowable. Furthermore, due to the human propensity for hope, what is "new" will always be presented in a positive light that is unreflective of what the reality will be. I view the idea that, somehow, we know better, are more enlightened, have keener insight, than those who went before to be the height of conceit.
While I feel this way, I'm glad that there are those that don't. I view society as a system, and I believe the presence of both resisters (or conservatives) and reactors (or progressives) is necessary for a well-performing system. The other integral element is a fusion rule for the dissenting opinions; which is why I'm much more concerned about gerry-mandering and judicial activism and ceding legislative powers to the executive branch and the flow of power from localities to the Federal government, than I am about any social issue. Because I believe that the decision fusion methodology active in the US political system is phenomenal and efforts to subvert it for short term gains are a significant danger to the health of our society.
Which is all to say, I love you all and am glad to have you as my fellow social components, no matter how wrong I think you are.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree with your last paragraph (or last two, if you count the single sentence as a paragraph) completely. I am curious, though, about "I think "progress" seldom leads to improvement." Are you thinking of that on a fairly short timeline, i.e. "progress" over the last 70 years or so, or do you really think that societal norms were better 200 or 1000 years ago?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Marriage has always been defined as two people who love each other solemnizing their union.
It most certainly has NOT "always been defined" as only two people. It also has not always been because the parties involved were in love. The only part of your definition that is actually true is "solemnizing their union."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I agree with your last paragraph (or last two, if you count the single sentence as a paragraph) completely. I am curious, though, about "I think "progress" seldom leads to improvement." Are you thinking of that on a fairly short timeline, i.e. "progress" over the last 70 years or so, or do you really think that societal norms were better 200 or 1000 years ago?
No. But if I'd lived 200 years ago, I imagine I would have felt the same way about the proposed progress (women the right to vote; humph, that can't be a good thing).
Which is to say, I would have been right and wrong; I think (believe, have faith in) the unique nature of our system allows positive change to be brought about and eventually made permanent (despite the best efforts of conservatives) but prevents bad change from occurring or persisting (despite the best efforts of progressives), where "good" and "bad" should be understood as relating to the health of the society and NOT according to some objective individual morality.
<edit>I think perhaps I obscured things by my "right to vote" example. In assessing the role of "progress" of our society we need to examine both how it has changed and how it has refused to change. It's hard (at least for me) to point to an example of negative change that was espoused by progressives that either didn't last or was prevented from implementation; perhaps the move toward radical wealth redistribution in the early 20th century.</edit>
[ May 19, 2008, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenjoRetep,
I am happy to provide the other side of the balance.
I tend to think that we move closer to the kingdom as we progress - especially as we progress towards justice. And I think that it is arrogance to think that we know better, are more enlightened, and have keener insight than our children and their children will.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other
Senoj, just curious what you mean when you say our society was 'one based in Christian tradition'?
That could mean many different things, a number of which I think are historically inaccurate, so I just want to know how you mean it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Marriage has always been defined as two people who love each other solemnizing their union.
It most certainly has NOT "always been defined" as only two people. It also has not always been because the parties involved were in love. The only part of your definition that is actually true is "solemnizing their union."
I agree with katharina here. I think love being the key definition of marriage is an extremely modern concept. I would say marriages were traditionally more of a business arrangement, often entered into by two people with no real choice in the matter with the main benefit going to their parents.
I also disagree with the idea that a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are the same. On whole, the probability of a heterosexual couple ending up with a child without outside intervention is infinitely higher then a homosexual couple. The risk of pregnancy makes things different (I have a friend right now pregnant with a "how the heck did the sperm get through three types of protection" baby and another whose husband almost left her over their oops baby). So, if the argument is that we should encourage marriage because it is good for babymaking (not raising, just making), looking at the whole population, not individuals, then there is an argument for giving perks only to straight couples.
Also, arguing for equal rights- supreme court ruled you can pay an equivalent man and woman different salaries as long as she doesn't find out for the first 180 days of employment. And congress couldn't get enough votes to change that. Clearly, equality is not necessarily a winning argument.
Better to answer the question- why is society better for legally recognizing same sex marriages. Marriages increase stability in our society so more people being married is good. Plus, we have lots of kids who need homes. Since gay couples can't make their own babies, they can raise the babies that are being neglected and abused right now. Having someone who is automatic next of kin makes inheritance issues easier as well as deciding what to do in case of medical problems where the individual can not communicate wishes. Having to legally dissolve a union requires a lot more work then just breaking up, so this will encourage couples to stay together, perhaps invest in a house together since they have increased security- that's good for the economy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:So, if the argument is that we should encourage marriage because it is good for babymaking (not raising, just making), looking at the whole population, not individuals, then there is an argument for giving perks only to straight couples.
[/QB]
Or we could give them to people with babies. Hmmm...maybe a tax incentive.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:So, if the argument is that we should encourage marriage because it is good for babymaking (not raising, just making), looking at the whole population, not individuals, then there is an argument for giving perks only to straight couples.
Or we could give them to people with babies. Hmmm...maybe a tax incentive. [/QB]
Or we could give tax incentives to people who don't have babies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was responding to the argument that we, as a society, want to encourage people to have babies. (I don't necessarily agree with this; I think that people will have plenty of babies without government incentives.) If we did want to do that, it makes more sense to me to "reward" the actual baby-making rather than reward straight couples over same-sex couples.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I know. I was just throwing in a random idea, somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But you also want to provide people with a security while having sex that should the women become pregnant, there will be legal protection for her. I have known too many people who have had babies while on the pill, using a condom, with a diaphram, etc to actually believe any of those methods can be fully trusted. I even know people who have had babies after getting tubes tied.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Being pregnant and having a child has devastating effects on a woman's earning capacity. Part of the purpose of marriage laws is providing legal protection and support for her and the children. It isn't fair, but that's the biology: reproducing is riskier for a woman. Marriage laws reduce the risk for the mother and raise the legal obligations of the father. I think that's a great idea.
By definition, that reduction of risk is not necessary for gay couples. No one is going to get pregnant without considerable effort.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Leaping over the last page and a half and going back to the concept of Civil Unions being the control of Government and Marriage being under the control of Religion.
First, Marriage and Religion, I made that case based on spiritual unions as opposed to legal unions. I highly doubt that athiest engage in 'spiritual' unions of this nature so they need no sanctifying body like the church.
So, in a clarification, spiritual unions are sanctified or certified by non-government entities, and the arbitration of these unions is carried out by the sanctifying or certifying body.
These unions carry no secular legal force. They can only be enforced to the extent that the involved parties recognize and accept the authority of the certifying body.
Again, we can use the Catholic Church as an example, you can be married and legally (by secular authority) be divorce, but the Catholic church will not recognize that divorce even though all legal and civil authorities will. You are free to legally remarry, if you chose not to recognize the authority of the church in this matter.
So, relative to exclusively spiritual marriages, there are no accompanying legal right or irresponsibilities, no tax benefits, no insurance claims, no divorce settlement, no medical decisions, beyond what is within the realm of the certifying non-government body to enforce.
Now, Civil Unions or secular marriage is a matter of law. There are certain inescapable legal responsibilities that come with 'marriage'. The governments involvement in 'marriage' is to insure that these legal responsibilities are documented and certified so that in the future they can not be legally contested.
You are the father of the children that result from this marriage, you have a legal obligation to those children. You also have legal obligations to your wife. Registering marriage insures that you live up to these responsibilities.
Now, certain rights and privileges also accompany documented secular legal marriage; shared benefits, right to make legal decisions relative to money, health, death, and taxes. Right to not be denied access to your family without due process of law. Etc...
So, I feel that the government very much does have a legal hand and place in documenting and certifying marriage. These legal right, benefits, and responsibilities must be insured.
Now most people take care of the legal aspects, and still have a religious or non-government ceremony in which they feel said ceremony makes their marriage complete. Yet, that ceremony for the most part carries no legal significant other than the fact that the pastor or minister is allowed to sign certifying that an offical ceremony has been completed.
However, I suspect you could skip the ceremony altogether, and simply get an authorized legal party to sign the marriage license, and that would be it. Simply a matter of entering into a contract.
In this sense, all marriages are civil unions because they are about civil and criminal law, and are certified by nothing more than a legal contract.
Still, most people want to take in beyond a legal contract and make it a spiritual or religious matter. That is a matter of personal preference, it really has nothing to do with law.
So, in a sense, we already have what I proposed earlier. Marriage is nothing but a civil union certified by the government. So, let's just make it that officially.
If people want to be spiritually married, they can add that additional ceremony by their own choosing.
In casual conversation, nothing has to change, people who are civilly 'married' can still refer to themselves as married. Most choose a further religious ceremony, so in that case, nothing changes.
I guess we could look at it this way, one couple could rightly in casual conversation say that they are married, another couple who went through both the civil certification and the religious ceremony could instead say they are Married.
married - a legal civil union casually referred to as 'marriage'.
Married - a legal civil union combine with the further authority of their preferred non-government body.
It seems a small distinction and it is. At present legal marriage is a civil union that we acceptably refer to as 'marriage'. In that sense, nothing would change; 'married' would still be 'married'.
However, if you chose to avoid the legal aspects, and chose only spiritual or non-government marriage that would be you free and legal choice. Though it should be noted that even in non-government marriage, there would be legal obligations regarding you wife and children, those legal aspects would just be a little harder to enforce.
This leaves the concept and implementation of Marriage in the hands of people who feel the need to preserve it in a conceptual form that seems right to them.
But, does not interfere with people who want to insure their rights and responsibilities with regard to 'unions'.
It's a subtle distinction, I know.
steve/bluewizard
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe it would be wise to use a term other than "spiritual marriage" to define the religious/sacramental/sacred aspect of marriage. "Spiritual marriage" already means a couple of other things, marriage without the sexual aspect and the sex with minors practice by that polygamous cult.
I agree that children should be protected and mothers should have support. It is not the case, though, that only married people have babies or that married people always have babies. Why not tie the protection and the support to the baby rather than to the couple getting married. Fathers are still fathers - married or not - and still have an obligation to provide protection and support.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
SenojRetep, I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick on you when I keep poking at this, but I find your position interesting so I'm trying to understand it better.
Are you saying that you don't feel the need to evaluate whether any given change is good or bad for society -- you've taken the role of opponent of change and since other people will take the proponent role things will balance out correctly?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
kmb, about your second point:
by saying "You are the father of the children that result from this marriage, you have a legal obligation to those children. You also have legal obligations to your wife. Registering marriage insures that you live up to these responsibilities", the definition of "marriage" here doesn't have to mean a formalized contract of a civil union.. If I go out and father a child, I assume obligations relative to the mother and child regardless of whether or not we have entered into a formal civil contract.
A formal civil union, this type of automatic protection of children, and marriages sanctioned by religious authorities can all be separate categories and need little relation with each other.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you father a child, you have an obligation to pay child support, but no obligations to support the mother. If you are married and divorced, then you may be obligated to pay alimony, which does go to the mother.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In reading about this, I have heard that some gay male couple define monogamy differently than I define monogamy--that is, my version of monogamy means no sex with any non-spouse, EVER.
Could I ask where you are reading this? This sounds suspiciously like a a study that I've seen pop up here and there that supposedly shows gays to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. What is never mentioned is that the criteria for selecting subjects in that study was that they be people who were not in long-term monogomous relationships. So a study of people who are not monogomous found a high level of promiscuity. Go figure!
EDIT: I found a commentary on the specific study, often cited as the "Dutch Study". It also appears to be heavily weighted towards gay men with AIDS.
Nato, if a man should provide protection to his children and support to the mother(s) of those children, I think that he should be required to do that whether or not they have been married.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "But, Steven, violence is inborn/natural too. And yet that's a moral issue."
State- and religion-sponsored violence go on all the time, and have for thousands of years. A good chunk of the Old Testament is about God telling the Jews to go whip some tail. Morality, at its heart, is about demonstrable harm. Religious organizations are not always able to change as fast as society changes these days or ever, but they still do change, and they have to.
Morality is about demonstrable harm; what we may differ on is what constitutes "harm".
And, everyone, please enlighten me as to what benefits, specifically, the government offers only to hetero married couples, and not to same-sex couples.
What disparities exist, that cannot be solved through civil unions?
What is so important about "marriage" as a term?
What is the desire here--is it wanting civil/legal things, or is it wanting a cultural thing?
Because it isn't that hard to get a power-of-attorney, to draw up a will and name one's lover/partner as beneficiary, to include the other on one's health insurance plan. That can be done already.
What I'm picking up here is that for some same-sex couples, it's really important to feel validated, to be recognized as "married".
I didn't argue that monogamy is good because it prevents disease transmission--steven did.
I do think there is a great deal of emotional harm that has lasting societal effects whenever one is involved in a non-monogamous relationship--that is, a relationship that is supposed to be monogamous, but where one partner "cheats".
And because some people fail at monogamy, society suffers. I don't think adultury is victimless crime.
But that's neither here nor there. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys (and I'm sure I don't have to ask twice ) but what you are saying is that society is doing great harm to homosexuals by not officially recognizing same-sex couples in precisely the same way heterosexual couples are recognized. Yes?
And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means, I assume this is a social/emotional harm? Is social/emotional harm subjective, or can it be quantified?
Because if we can't argue "officially recognizing gay unions hurts our society", then I don't think the inverse can fairly be argued either.
If I wanted to be a polygamist, would you fight for my right to a previously illegal union?
And, my taxes go to support things I don't personally want to support all the time. Most people end up paying for something they don't want, through taxes. We have a way to have our say about what things we DO want to spend our taxes on; it's called a legislature. Maybe we should let our legislatures decide this issue, instead of having the courts decide it for us.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What is so important about "marriage" as a term?
This is the same question that gays are asking. Apparently there is value to the term because both groups want to own it. Well, I guess the gays are willing to share.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
How can the civil/legal benefits be attained by other means? As far as I'm aware, the only way you can get a tax break for being married is by... being married. The only way you can get *instant* access to a person in an emergency/hospital situation is by being related to them by blood or marriage. It's much easier to adopt children as a couple in certain areas if you're married. Etc, etc, etc. There are numerous rights granted to married couples that are impossible, or very, very difficult to gain in any way outside of marriage.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means,
All of the civil/legal benefits can not be obtained by other means. A power of attorney may grant some subset of marriage rights, but it does achieve full parity.
Take a look at the number of documents that need to be prepared, along with the caveats about their enforcability in different juridictions, at this site:
All of that just to get a portion of the benefits that occur automatically when a couple is married. And that page is only covering estate planning issues.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Because if we can't argue "officially recognizing gay unions hurts our society", then I don't think the inverse can fairly be argued either.
You CAN argue it. But no one seems to come up with a valid way in which it would hurt society. If you have one, I'd sincerely love to hear it.
quote:If I wanted to be a polygamist, would you fight for my right to a previously illegal union?
Personally, yes.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko:
Because it isn't that hard to get a power-of-attorney, to draw up a will and name one's lover/partner as beneficiary, to include the other on one's health insurance plan. That can be done already.
That is absolutely not true. Some companies choose to offer benefits to non-married partners, but unless your employer makes that choice you cannot just choose to include someone on your health insurance plan.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:In reading about this, I have heard that some gay male couple define monogamy differently than I define monogamy--that is, my version of monogamy means no sex with any non-spouse, EVER.
Could I ask where you are reading this? This sounds suspiciously like a a study that I've seen pop up here and there that supposedly shows gays to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. What is never mentioned is that the criteria for selecting subjects in that study was that they be people who were not in long-term monogomous relationships. So a study of people who are not monogomous found a high level of promiscuity. Go figure!
EDIT: I found a commentary on the specific study, often cited as the "Dutch Study". It also appears to be heavily weighted towards gay men with AIDS.
The problem with trying to determine if gay men are more promiscuous then straight men is that you first have to determine if men or women are more promiscuous. If men are more willing to engage in a one night stand then women, in a heterosexual situation that means less one night stands. From talking to my straight male friends, if more girls were willing, they would have a lot more one night stands then they do.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you father a child, you have an obligation to pay child support, but no obligations to support the mother. If you are married and divorced, then you may be obligated to pay alimony, which does go to the mother.
Ehh, of course. Obligations to the child frequently pass through the mother. It doesn't matter to my point. You just don't have to consider the obligations imposed by the different sorts of contracts (church marriages, state-sanctioned civil unions, and automatic protection of children) together.
And when considering the benefits the state grants through recognition of civil contracts, you don't need to consider the other two levels. From the state's perspective, I don't see a reason gender should be a factor in the paperwork (If you make such a distinction, you have to justify it in terms of the state and federal constitution). Individual A and Individual B.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The problem with trying to determine if gay men are more promiscuous then straight men is that you first have to determine if men or women are more promiscuous. If men are more willing to engage in a one night stand then women, in a heterosexual situation that means less one night stands. From talking to my straight male friends, if more girls were willing, they would have a lot more one night stands then they do.
No doubt. Even ignoring that fact, the studies that are cited are worse than useless because they don't prove the points that anti-SSM people think they prove. A study of non-monogamous gay urban males with AIDS is not going to provide any useful information on the relative promiscuity of gay and straight men.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other
Senoj, just curious what you mean when you say our society was 'one based in Christian tradition'?
I mean the legal base for most of the laws in our states and localities is due to Christian ideals of behavior. That, I believe, is why there are anti-sodomy laws on the books in so many places, and why SSM has not been recognized in America for the first 400 years of its history. Its also why profanity was outlawed, and why stores were compelled to close on Sunday. I guess whether the federal constitution is the product of a Christian legal tradition is perhaps more debatable. However, the laws under which we live, and the unwritten laws under which we operate, are largely due, I believe, to the Christian tradition.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other
Senoj, just curious what you mean when you say our society was 'one based in Christian tradition'?
I mean the legal base for most of the laws in our states and localities is due to Christian ideals of behavior. That, I believe, is why there are anti-sodomy laws on the books in so many places, and why SSM has not been recognized in America for the first 400 years of its history. Its also why profanity was outlawed, and why stores were compelled to close on Sunday. I guess whether the federal constitution is the product of a Christian legal tradition is perhaps more debatable. However, the laws under which we live, and the unwritten laws under which we operate, are largely due, I believe, to the Christian tradition.
Put that broadly, I would agree. But with the caveat that the Christian tradition is largely due to the Jewish tradition, which is largely due to all the other traditions that came before it.
But don't want to turn this into a game of 'what came first'. Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: SenojRetep, I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick on you when I keep poking at this, but I find your position interesting so I'm trying to understand it better.
Are you saying that you don't feel the need to evaluate whether any given change is good or bad for society -- you've taken the role of opponent of change and since other people will take the proponent role things will balance out correctly?
Not at all. I just find that, after examining my feelings and various rationales, I almost always end up on the side opposing change. I recognize that, from a historical perspective, many of my positions will be wrong; however I don't believe a priori that any of them are. What I mean is, I'm sincere in my beliefs, but I recognize that no matter how well studied out I try to be on a matter, its a given that sometimes I will have misjudged the long term effects.
That's manybe not an entirely clear explanation. Perhaps I could say that while I believe what I believe, I am not so conceited as to be unable to admit that I will sometimes be found, after the fact, to have misjudged the consequences of some changes. I'm not knowingly wrong about any one thing, but I'm almost certain that I'm wrong about something.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ah. Thank you, that makes much more sense.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Actually, one of my big fears is living long enough to learn everything I've been wrong about. Or, rather, the painful process of changing once it becomes evident that change is what society requires of me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means,
All of the civil/legal benefits can not be obtained by other means. A power of attorney may grant some subset of marriage rights, but it does achieve full parity.
Take a look at the number of documents that need to be prepared, along with the caveats about their enforcability in different juridictions, at this site: http://www.gaymarriagelawyers.com/ia/ia4.htm
All of that just to get a portion of the benefits that occur automatically when a couple is married. And that page is only covering estate planning issues.
When Havah and I bought our home, we were told that we could not have the title list us as joint tenants in entirety. Why? Because we're not married. Read this:
quote:TBE is a concurrent estate, similar to joint tenancy, which can be established only by and between a husband and a wife for a primary personal residence. The primary difference (and advantage) that a TBE has over joint tenancy is that creditors of an individual spouse cannot reach real estate held in a TBE to satisfy a claim of only one, but not both, of the spouses. Another factor to consider is that, unlike a joint tenancy, a TBE cannot be unilaterally severed by either joint owner.
In other words, we are going to be penalized because we're not allowed to marry.
There isn't a thing we can do about it, either. We're at the mercy of a state that deems us second class citizens.
[ May 19, 2008, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other
Senoj, just curious what you mean when you say our society was 'one based in Christian tradition'?
I mean the legal base for most of the laws in our states and localities is due to Christian ideals of behavior. That, I believe, is why there are anti-sodomy laws on the books in so many places, and why SSM has not been recognized in America for the first 400 years of its history. Its also why profanity was outlawed, and why stores were compelled to close on Sunday. I guess whether the federal constitution is the product of a Christian legal tradition is perhaps more debatable. However, the laws under which we live, and the unwritten laws under which we operate, are largely due, I believe, to the Christian tradition.
But hang on, all your examples are of bad things! Unless you want to return to laws against profanity and Sunday opening? I'm not getting how this is an argument in favour of the status quo. "Our laws are based on tradition X, which does A, B and C, all of which are bad. So clearly our current laws are the best possible!" Obviously this cannot be what you are arguing, but I don't understand what you are saying instead.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
"Married" is a loaded term.
Once the government recognize a marriage as being a whatever its participants say it is, what will we do about the religious definition of marriage?
Since churches are tax-exempt, will they be next on the roster of change?
I think it clearly matters to some, what churches think, especially about what consititutes a "marriage".
I think it is reasonable to pass legislature that affords the same legal rights and benefits to SS couples. Isn't that what CA's Domestic Partners Act is?
What it is not, is a "right" to marriage. The right to marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Nobody has a "right" to marriage.
I am confused--first someone argues that marriage isn't a big deal, so hetero couple should be grateful that SS couples are generously willing to share the term (hi, Mattp )
but apparently it's a big deal, a huge deal, that SS couples not only have civil unions, but marriages, and it grievously harms homosexuals to not be married.
Maybe if I give personal background, you'll see where I'm coming from, and why I'm curious.
I am LDS, and my husband is a member. We are civilly married (well, most of the time, hee hee) but we have not been married in the temple, or "sealed".
Being sealed, according to our church's doctrine, is different from civil marriage, in that there are different/more commandments, and different/more blessings.
Sometimes some people at church have the attitude that because DH and I have not been sealed, we aren't "really married", which is silly. Of course we're married, and that marriage does matter.
That lack of validation--that attitude that DH and I won't be really married util we're sealed, doesn't affect our love for each other, or our fidelity.
We don't fight to be called "sealed", because we are not sealed. We aren't.
Sometime boneheads at church will be a little judgemental about it, and sometimes people are perfectly nice about it.
But despite the boneheads at church, DH and I are not deprived or denied anything, and we refuse to adopt their attitude that our marriage somehow doesn't matter as much as a temple marriage does; and despite the niceness of others, we do not expect them to call us "sealed", to make us feel better.
In a way, doesn't demanding the government recognize gay partnerships as "marriage" show a sort of...inferiority complex?
The G/L/B people I've talked to before have been adamant that the homosexual lifestyle is a perfectly valid choice.
If so, and if civil unions carry the same legal bennies as civil marriage, then why with the need to adopt a historically heterosexual construct like "marriage"?
If homosexuality is not just a preference, like whether you prefer Brie to Havarti cheese, but instead is a whole way of thinking and a whole different way of life...and if heterosexual people and culture are seen as oppressors and deniers or rights...then why would one even want to associate with that culture?
What I see here is, people have a great deal of regard for something historical--marriage--but also feel little compunction in changing that.
I am not sealed; in my religion, DH and I would need to conform and change to have that term applied to us. We don't consider that oppressive or unfair.
How is it oppressive and unfair for a culture to say, "No, sorry, we will call you partnered, or united, or whatever else you like, but 'married' is for one man/one woman lifelong contracts."
Really. I'm not asking to be rude; just asking in order to be informed.
I do think that marriage is made to support procreation; I do think procreation is essential. I think we have societies for the sake of our children, and we have and teach children, for the sake of building and maintaining our societies. I think humans are good and should survive as a race, and societies where monogamy and the protection of children from every kind of harm is the best assurance of the continued survival of humans.
Not that anybody asked.
Out of curiousity, how would you react to the government and/or churches creating a new term reserved only for heterosexual marriages?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But despite the boneheads at church, DH and I are not deprived or denied anything...
Do you not still call yourself "married" in nine social situations out of ten? And in nine situations out of ten, does not the word "married" suffice? How often, in your common discussions, does your "sealing" status come up? Do you have a different word for "person to whom I am eternally sealed" than "husband?"
You accept that you are not "sealed" because you recognize that there is a fundamental difference between "sealing" and "marriage." The point homosexual couples are trying to make is that there is -- at least from their point of view -- no fundamental, substantive difference between their union and a heterosexual union. If the Mormons you knew refused to call you married, would you mind? What if they constantly called your husband your "boyfriend" or "partner?"
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Once the government recognize a marriage as being a whatever its participants say it is, what will we do about the religious definition of marriage?
Since churches are tax-exempt, will they be next on the roster of change?
Huh? I don't see where you're going here at all. Churches often have different definition of what it means to be married than the state does. That was pointed out earlier in this thread.
I don't see how that follows to threatening their tax-exempt status either. It's like you're making a slippery slope argument where halfway down the slope you get teleported to a DIFFERENT slope.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tax exemption is exactly equivalent to getting government funds. (Which is why churches should not be tax exempt, to be sure, not that this is going to happen.) One could easily argue that if the government is going to give churches special favours, then the churches ought to follow the government line.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But hang on, all your examples are of bad things! Unless you want to return to laws against profanity and Sunday opening? I'm not getting how this is an argument in favour of the status quo. "Our laws are based on tradition X, which does A, B and C, all of which are bad. So clearly our current laws are the best possible!" Obviously this cannot be what you are arguing, but I don't understand what you are saying instead.
I would probably argue in favor of returning to the previous rule in both of those cases; I'm very bothered by public vulgarity (on a par with my distress over littering). I also thing a compulsory break, one day a week, from buying and selling (whether its Sunday or not) would result in an improved perspective within our society.
However, if 200 years from now those things have become a permanent part of our society, and if I were transported to such a point and an argument was made to change them, I might have a very different opinion than the one I hold today. Or maybe not, I can't say for sure.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
To Sachiko: I would suspicious that over time it could be leveraged to create actual legal inequalities, and even short of that, lead to the potential of covert discrimination where certain rights/privileges ought to be applied equitably to both "married" folks and "civilly unioned" folks, but aren't because we can't really know why a mortgage lending agent turns down a same-sex couple for a house that they approve for a heterosexual couple.
Of course, the latter can still happen, even if marriage is used as the blanket term, but there's a heck of a lot of common law involved with legal marriage that would probably give the same-sex couple a leg up if they chose to challenge the decision of the agent.
-Bok
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
So in fact, you want to use the power of the state dictate when I can, or cannot, buy milk, in order to satisfy some vague longing for a 'better perspective'? Is this seriously what you are arguing, or am I just totally misunderstanding you? Because if it is, then dude, you are just a walking argument for using the power of the state to suppress all religion.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Okay, then, how will you react if churches persist in refusing to recognize your SS marriage?
What about other organizations?
What will you ask to be called instead? What will you agree to be called instead?
Sealing status does come up, TomDavidson. And there is a difference between "husband" and "eternal husband" or, more commonly, "eternal companion". It does come up, more often than you'd think (sometimes more often than I'd like) that I do not actually have an "eternal companion", though I do have a husband.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And, everyone, please enlighten me as to what benefits, specifically, the government offers only to hetero married couples, and not to same-sex couples.
We can't file our taxes jointly. We can't hold title on our home safely. If you're asking this question honestly, and not just as a rhetorical device, I'd be glad to get you a list of the things we're denied.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What disparities exist, that cannot be solved through civil unions?
None at all. Provided that it's civil unions for you as well.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What is so important about "marriage" as a term?
Why should I be forced, for example, to out myself when asked for my marital status? Why should I have to worry about whether my employer provides same-sex partner medical benefits? Not to mention the fact that the part of those benefits which covers my partner is taxable, which wouldn't be the case if we were an opposite sex couple.
So I get fined for being gay, if I'm even lucky enough to find a job that is willing to pay more for medical coverage so that they can cover same-sex partners.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What is the desire here--is it wanting civil/legal things, or is it wanting a cultural thing?
Civil, legal and cultural things. Why are they mutually exclusive?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Because it isn't that hard to get a power-of-attorney, to draw up a will and name one's lover/partner as beneficiary, to include the other on one's health insurance plan. That can be done already.
No. I don't know where you live, but it's not all that easy. First of all, some of the things you're talking about are bloody expensive. Are you willing to pay for it?
Second of all, what about people in Michigan? The Michiganers passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting any of the things that are even like marriage to be applied to same-sex unions. As a result, people who had medical benefits for their same-sex partners found them cancelled by government decree.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What I'm picking up here is that for some same-sex couples, it's really important to feel validated, to be recognized as "married".
I think you want to minimize the issue and portray it as something you deem trivial. You want to obscure the real cost of this discrimination rather than face up to what it is.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: But that's neither here nor there. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys (and I'm sure I don't have to ask twice ) but what you are saying is that society is doing great harm to homosexuals by not officially recognizing same-sex couples in precisely the same way heterosexual couples are recognized. Yes?
Yes. Either recognize our marriages like your marriages, or get the government out of the business of recognizing marriage altogether.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means, I assume this is a social/emotional harm? Is social/emotional harm subjective, or can it be quantified?
Your premise is wrong, so your conclusion lacks any validity. They cannot be attained by other means.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And, my taxes go to support things I don't personally want to support all the time. Most people end up paying for something they don't want, through taxes. We have a way to have our say about what things we DO want to spend our taxes on; it's called a legislature.
In California, the legislature did pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Twice. Arnold vetoed them, saying that he wanted the Supreme Court to weigh in. So what's your kvetch now? Both the legislature and the judicial have said the same thing here. And since Arnold has said that he will oppose any constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, that's three for three.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Maybe we should let our legislatures decide this issue, instead of having the courts decide it for us.
If you were honest about saying, "Let the legislature deal with it", you'd applaud what happened in California and be done with it, since that's what happened. But I don't think you are. I think that's simply rhetoric.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I would probably argue in favor of returning to the previous rule in both of those cases; I'm very bothered by public vulgarity (on a par with my distress over littering). I also thing a compulsory break, one day a week, from buying and selling (whether its Sunday or not) would result in an improved perspective within our society.
Legally restricting what transactions consenting individuals are permitted to take part in strikes me as being rather counter to the principle of agency which the LDS church seems to hold in high regard. I understand that you wish people would take a day off - I do too. I also wish people ate more healthy food but I'm not ready to outlaw Cheetos.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: To Sachiko: I would suspicious that over time it could be leveraged to create actual legal inequalities, and even short of that, lead to the potential of covert discrimination where certain rights/privileges ought to be applied equitably to both "married" folks and "civilly unioned" folks, but aren't because we can't really know why a mortgage lending agent turns down a same-sex couple for a house that they approve for a heterosexual couple.
Of course, the latter can still happen, even if marriage is used as the blanket term, but there's a heck of a lot of common law involved with legal marriage that would probably give the same-sex couple a leg up if they chose to challenge the decision of the agent.
-Bok
I don't see how it would. We have anti-discrimination laws in place already, that have been in place for years, and yet I am sure some unethical real estate agents still discriminate based on color or religion.
And since legal parity is offered to same-sex couples under the Domestic Partners Act, the same legal rights as heterosexual couples have, then I don't see how a ss couple that is called "married" versus a "united" one (or married/Married) will be subject to any more or less discrimination.
*edited to add-Well, I guess using the term "married" for ALL couples on all documentation means that someone doing paperwork wouldn't, say, read "united" couple and say, "Aha, they're a same sex couple! I'll deny them the loan."
But unless same sex couples are planning to never go house-hunting in person, where agents and loan officers will see that, hey, it's two guys or two girls and not one of each...then what they are called doesn't matter, since unethical agents/officers will have the opportunity to unfairly discriminate anyway.
If what we're afraid of is what people will do when they read something telltale like "united" instead of "married", then should we also tell ethnic people to change their names to something Anglo, so people can't discriminate based on clearly ethnic names?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Okay, then, how will you react if churches persist in refusing to recognize your SS marriage?
Why would I care whether some church I don't care about recognized my marriage?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I am fine with a church not recognizing, or performing, a marriage between (or more) people, for any religious reason whatsoever. I told my local rep here in MA as much when I sent her an email IN SUPPORT OF extending legal marriage rights/responsibilities to same-sex couples.
The first amendment (and subsequent interpretation) is there for a good reason, IMO.
Personal anecdote: I married a Jew. I am a Gentile. It was very hard to find a rabbi that would co-officiate our wedding, and I respected that, and certainly wasn't about to sue anyone about it. I'd have no case for it. I was also glad our rabbi was okay with it.
Sachiko, it seems you attribute pretty awful motivations to same-sex legal/civil marriage supporters, if you think we're all just doing it to extend the idea into the churches/synagogues/mosques/alien spaceships. Sure there are some who might, and I'll be right there with you saying those people are idiots. Much like I'd presume that you'd be with me if one of the tiny minority of folks that want only Christian marriages to be recognized tried to change the law to reflect their ideology in condemning their attempts.
-Bok
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Sealing status does come up, TomDavidson. And there is a difference between "husband" and "eternal husband" or, more commonly, "eternal companion". It does come up, more often than you'd think (sometimes more often than I'd like) that I do not actually have an "eternal companion", though I do have a husband.
In what context?
I'm a non-LDS man married to an LDS woman. I've *never* had a conversation with anyone in our ward, or elsewhere, where the fact that I was not sealed to her has come up. I have friend and family who are married but not sealed and they have not related any such stories of awkward mentions about them not being sealed. Not having a temple recommend comes up often enough, but not being sealed to their spouse - that's new for me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
My husband and I were married in a civil court, in a completely non-religious ceremony. But the civil servant who processed the papers still called us married, 'cause that's what the government calls it when two people form that sort of completely-secular legal contract. If you're going to offer the same sort of legal contract to homosexuals, I don't see why you'd call it anything different. I'm very thankful that we were married in California, a state that recognizes that all people should have the right to form the same sort of legal contracts.
We also had a Hindu marriage ceremony a year later. And you know what? The Hindu faith allows for the marriage of homosexuals (indeed, a couple of their male gods were married & procreated). I don't see why the Christian understanding of the word "marriage" gets to trump the Hindu understanding of the word, especially in our secular society made up of people from many different cultural backgrounds.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What it is not, is a "right" to marriage. The right to marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Nobody has a "right" to marriage.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. If "marriage" is defined as a union of two people that's been solemnized by some or other group, you're right. But in the United States of America in 2008, marriage is defined as a status that provides legal and financial benefits. And the Constitution does indeed guarantee all Americans equal rights under the law.
Take marriage away from the government, and you'd have a point. Are you willing to lose the right to file your taxes jointly? Will you enjoy deciding each year whether your children should be counted as yours or as your husband's on your 1040?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: We don't fight to be called "sealed", because we are not sealed. We aren't.
You have it backwards. You have all the federal and state perks of being married, without any of the religious obligations. It's those perks you want to deny me. As a penalty for being gay.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: In a way, doesn't demanding the government recognize gay partnerships as "marriage" show a sort of...inferiority complex?
"In a way, doesn't demanding the government recognize interracial partnerships as 'marriage' show a sort of...inferiority complex?"
Disgusting.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: The G/L/B people I've talked to before have been adamant that the homosexual lifestyle is a perfectly valid choice.
I'm quite sure that most of them have denied that it's a choice at all. Or a "lifestyle". It may be a cliche, but I don't have a lifestyle, I have a life.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: If so, and if civil unions carry the same legal bennies as civil marriage, then why with the need to adopt a historically heterosexual construct like "marriage"?
They don't carry the same legal bennies as civil marriage. That's the answer to your question. Will you acknowledge it, or will you continue to pretend that you haven't heard it answered by several people here already?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Really. I'm not asking to be rude; just asking in order to be informed.
You aren't being truthful. You're polemecizing; not just asking in order to be informed. Because you've been informed. You've ignored the information.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: I do think that marriage is made to support procreation; I do think procreation is essential.
I'm sure my daughter would agree with that.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Out of curiousity, how would you react to the government and/or churches creating a new term reserved only for heterosexual marriages?
Who cares about churches?
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Heh heh heh The onl reason in my mind why gay marriage should even be discussed is because of the church, and i'm athiest. Do all of you have that big a problem with I mean really, how would say, Lisa being married affect your lives negatively in any way. Take a breather haters. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
oops only
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Jhai--If I went to India, I wouldn't expect Hindus to abide by my definition of marriage.
The majority of Americans are Christians (for good or ill ) so, unsurprisingly, the usual definition of marriage is a Judeo-Christian one.
Bokonon--I don't attribute "awful" motives to proponents of SS marriage. I don't think anyone is doing it just to accomplish X,Y, and Z. Honestly, I'm just asking why and how, right now.
And I think it's a fair question, since my definition of marriage is fairly religious, and not limited to government-approved contractual obligation. I am wondering, how will a redefinition of marriage apply to me in my daily life?
I'm not attributing motives to anyone. If anything, I am asking questions and inviting others to explain their motives to me.
C'mon, doesn't everyone itch to enlighten an ignorant bigot like me?
MattP--if it's never come up for you, then you are definately talking to different people than I am.
You may find this presumptuous, in fact you likely will, but I am thinking people don't bring it up with you because
a. you're a guy, and guys tend to not discuss that kind of thing with other guys unless they have to, and
b. you're a nonmember, and Mormons usually go out of their way to not alienate nonmembers. (usually, and with varying degrees of success)
Members like me get the full treatment, though. And what kind of marriage one is in is a common topic of conversation among women, at least among the Mormon women I have known.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
You don't get a pass on that, Sachiko. There is a significant presence of Hindus in this country, and there's no reason why numbers alone mean that the Christian majority gets to trample on their religion.
Oh, and India actually has a separate set of marriage laws for each religion represented in the country. Not that I think this is a good thing - but they certainly would respect your definition of marriage.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:MattP--if it's never come up for you, then you are definately talking to different people than I am.
You may find this presumptuous, in fact you likely will, but I am thinking people don't bring it up with you because
a. you're a guy, and guys tend to not discuss that kind of thing with other guys unless they have to, and
b. you're a nonmember, and Mormons usually go out of their way to not alienate nonmembers. (usually, and with varying degrees of success)
I've already covered this - family and friends who are members are also not getting bugged about this. And my wife certainly isn't a guy and no one is pestering her either. This is why I asked about what context the topic comes up in. It sounds like you've just got a particularly gossipy bunch of busybodies in your ward, but my own experience tells me that your experience is not representative.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
That is an interesting idea, Jhai. I wonder how we could make that kind of system work--where each religion could define marriage.
And I don't think the Christian majority would trample on Hindo religion--but I do think a majority would vote to define marriage differently, in this country. That is the nature of our legislative system.
But I don't think most Christians would vote to define marriage in a non-Hindu way, simply in order to trample on Hindus. I don't think Hindus would even be on the radar for most people--and I don't know if that makes you feel better or worse, though.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And I think it's a fair question, since my definition of marriage is fairly religious, and not limited to government-approved contractual obligation. I am wondering, how will a redefinition of marriage apply to me in my daily life?
Oh, that's an easy one - there will be no substantive affect on your daily life, unless you are a judge that performs civil marriage ceremonies, or perhaps if you work somehow with benefits administration.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:MattP--if it's never come up for you, then you are definately talking to different people than I am.
You may find this presumptuous, in fact you likely will, but I am thinking people don't bring it up with you because
a. you're a guy, and guys tend to not discuss that kind of thing with other guys unless they have to, and
b. you're a nonmember, and Mormons usually go out of their way to not alienate nonmembers. (usually, and with varying degrees of success)
I've already covered this - family and friends who are members are also not getting bugged about this. And my wife certainly isn't a guy and no one is pestering her either. This is why I asked about what context the topic comes up in. It sounds like you've just got a particularly gossipy bunch of busybodies in your ward, but my own experience tells me that your experience is not representative.
And my own experience tells me your experience is not representative. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But I don't think most Christians would vote to define marriage in a non-Hindu way, simply in order to trample on Hindus.
The violent imagery here seems odd - trample? Really? If gays get married, you get trampled?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:And my own experience tells me your experience is not representative.
Except I wasn't implying that mine was. I noted a difference and asked for additional context and you have not been very forthcoming about providing it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The main point of my post that you seem to be missing, Sachiko, is that you don't get to define a secular marriage however you want. You can't define it in accordance with your religion because the United States is a secular country. Christianity just doesn't have a unique claim to the word marriage, no matter what you'd like to believe. If the United States government calls a certain contract between two people "marriage" then it shouldn't matter what faith, race, gender or anything else they are - it should be called a marriage for all, or a marriage for none.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
What if, Jhai it's a bugger and a human, what then, hmmm Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And I don't think the Christian majority would trample on Hindo religion--but I do think a majority would vote to define marriage differently, in this country. That is the nature of our legislative system.
But out government is also in place to protect the minority form the tyranny of the majority. It isn't all majority rules.
When they ruled that interracial marriage was legal, around 90%, IIRC, were against interracial marriage. Was that the wrong decision for the courts to make? No, because the majority should not be allowed to deny the freedom of the minority.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Actually, MattP, I first brought up the word "trample" a couple of posts up. Hindus define the word "marriage" differently than Christians do (i.e. homosexual marriage is religiously okay), and, as I stated above, I don't think that Christians have free reign to put their definition into the law books of our secular nation just because they're the majority.
Edit: T:man, frankly, if there's two consenting "beings" (i.e. intelligent raman), I'm really okay with it.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And I think it's a fair question, since my definition of marriage is fairly religious, and not limited to government-approved contractual obligation. I am wondering, how will a redefinition of marriage apply to me in my daily life?
Oh, that's an easy one - there will be no substantive affect on your daily life, unless you are a judge that performs civil marriage ceremonies, or perhaps if you work somehow with benefits administration.
Okay, so this is something that same-sex couples feel affects their daily life in a significant manner--not getting to use terms like "husband", "wife" and "marriage" is emotionally deletorious--but I won't notice it?
*musing on that* But if it's such a big deal, surely it will affect even me, somehow...
For instance--let me bounce this off of you--if my children and I are at the library, and a gay couple precedes us in line, and they introduce themselves to my kids (my kids are like golden labs, they think all strangers are their best friends ) with, "Hi, I'm George, and this is my husband, Tim."
So, those of you who are homosexual, would you be offended if I either tell my kids, "Save your questions, we'll discuss this later", or, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: The main point of my post that you seem to be missing, Sachiko, is that you don't get to define a secular marriage however you want. You can't define it in accordance with your religion because the United States is a secular country. Christianity just doesn't have a unique claim to the word marriage, no matter what you'd like to believe. If the United States government calls a certain contract between two people "marriage" then it shouldn't matter what faith, race, gender or anything else they are - it should be called a marriage for all, or a marriage for none.
But I'm not defining marriage however I want. Nobody is defining marriage however they want, except maybe some judges.
If anything, it should be left up to the people to decide, through secular means, i.e., the legislature.
Now, some people who vote on what their preferred definition of marriage is, will be religiously motivated. A Christian may vote to define marriage one way; and Hindu may vote to define it another way.
I don't discount religious motivation for political action.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think it would be morally wrong of you (and impolite to boot!), but I think that all people who follow one of the big three monotheistic religions are acting immorally.
However, I also think you have a perfect right to say so if you wish.
Edit: You're choosing to make your religious definition of marriage the secular law. That's wrong.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:So, those of you who are homosexual, would you be offended if I either tell my kids, "Save your questions, we'll discuss this later", or, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Plenty of gays and lesbians already refer to their partners as "husband" or "wife," regardless of whether they live in a jurisdiction where they can be legally married or not. I fail to see how it would be any more difficult for you to tell your children, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't" than to tell them, "Wiccans recognize handfasting between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And my own experience tells me your experience is not representative.
Except I wasn't implying that mine was. I noted a difference and asked for additional context and you have not been very forthcoming about providing it.
Which additional context did you request?
Believe me, I'm all too eager to talk about myself. Just ask and I'll tell you. Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr:
quote:So, those of you who are homosexual, would you be offended if I either tell my kids, "Save your questions, we'll discuss this later", or, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Plenty of gays and lesbians already refer to their partners as "husband" or "wife," regardless of whether they live in a jurisdiction where they can be legally married or not. I fail to see how it would be any more difficult for you to tell your children, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't" than to tell them, "Wiccans recognize handfasting between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Mkay.
*edited to add--Jhai, see, I wonder how many people feel as you do.
Is there any possible way for me to reinforce my teachings to my children, without seeming impossibly rude?
I fear there is not, no matter how much goodwill I bear to SS couples.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Which additional context did you request?
Believe me, I'm all too eager to talk about myself. Just ask and I'll tell you.
I just wondered in what context the topic of your "not real" marriage comes up. It it just chatting with other women in the ward, during home teacher visits, during tithing settlement? I've been steeped in LDS culture for about 15 years now, and I can't think of any reasonable place for that topic to come up beyond, perhaps, discussions with the bishopric. I guess I could see the "What temple were you sealed in?" question leading to an admission of "none", but I'm a little astonished that this response would be met with even subtle scorn.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Is there any possible way for me to reinforce my teachings to my children, without seeming impossibly rude?
You don't have to do it right in front of them. I see no problem with waiting a few minutes until you are alone with your children in the car to educate them about what your religion has to say on the matter.
I would liken this to my children encountering a severely crippled or grossly deformed individual. There are obvious and potentially embarassing questions that children are likely to have which are best answered later on where you are not going to be discussing another individual in 3rd person while they are still present, which is intrinsicly rude.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Sachiko, I mean no offense, but I take your whole position on this situation as horribly rude to homosexuals. That doesn't mean I don't think you have a right to voice your opinions, or to (generally) teach your children as you want.
From my perspective, telling your children that your religion does not respect homosexual marriage is no more ruder than not respecting homosexual marriage to begin with, so, once you've taken that position, I don't think you're behaving any worse by acting out the library scenario.
Edit: And, yeah, as MattP says, not doing it right in front of them would make it less impolite. Also, tone and exact word choice would have a large affect here, as with all criticism.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Sachiko, I'm uncertain how to take your "Mkay" response. The situation I described does occur (I have multiple friends who refer to their religiously-but-not-legally-wedded partners as "husband" and/or "wife"), and I'm genuinely curious as to why you would be less uncomfortable dealing with your children in that situation than you would if you were to meet a couple who were legally wedded, but could not have married in your religious tradition. (If your point is simply that you'd be equally uncomfortable in both situations, but that you feel one is unavoidable and the other avoidable, that's a reasonable answer.)
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
So, Jhai, the only possible way to not be considered "rude" is to accept homosexual marriage--not just accepting it legally, but also accepting it morally?
I thought I was here asking questions and getting informed. If I disagree on small points, it's in order to ask better, more meaningful questions.
Is that really offensive? Is it more or less offensive than me deciding I know what I know, and ain't nobody telling me any different? Because I thought discussing it was preferable.
MattP--True, and I would treat it like any other embarassing question my children would ask all-too-loudly in a public place.
I wonder, though, if a failure to support the philosophy of same-sex marriage is wrong.
After all, if my son's asking loudly (and if it's embarassing, my kids will say it!) "But, Mom, you told us that we believe marriage is between a man and a woman! They're doing something wrong" and I keep smiling and repeating, "Son, we'll discuss this later"...well, that would be the best I can do, to not be offensive, while still maintaining what I believe. I'm wondering if that would be considered "good enough". I'm guessing not?
MattP, it's in conversation with other ladies; conversations with other men, usually bishopric members; conversation with family members; conversation with LDS people I know online.
Now, my husband and I are both seventh-generation, lifelong members. We have a passing familiarity with the church. And, he's been married to me as long as I've been married to him.
And HE has reported experiencing less of an emphasis on marriage/sealing.
I don't know if it's because women talk more about temple sealing vs. civil marriage.
I don't know if it's because I'm seen as the "active" member in my marriage, and so I am the one approached by zealous church members to push my husband into greater church activity--along with reminders of needing to get sealed in the temple.
Perhaps I have a different inlaw situation than you do.
Perhaps it's because I have several small children, and I homeschool, and therefore am assumed to have a different spiritual background than I actually do.
For whatever reason, that's my experience. I'm happy for you that you have a different experience. However, your experience does not negate mine.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by ambyr: Sachiko, I'm uncertain how to take your "Mkay" response. The situation I described does occur (I have multiple friends who refer to their religiously-but-not-legally-wedded partners as "husband" and/or "wife"), and I'm genuinely curious as to why you would be less uncomfortable dealing with your children in that situation than you would if you were to meet a couple who were legally wedded, but could not have married in your religious tradition. (If your point is simply that you'd be equally uncomfortable in both situations, but that you feel one is unavoidable and the other avoidable, that's a reasonable answer.)
Precisely.
Also--we do believe that people should be married, but that we love them and don't confront them when they are not.
My husband's sister isn't officially married to her common-law husband of 5 years; they have three children.
When SIL is around our children, she supports what we teach them, i.e., we should try to be married before we have children.
My SIL doesn't require that I teach her non-marriage is precisely correct; we don't require her to conform to our personal standards when we welcome her to our home.
Please forgive my slowness, and thank you for your patience--I do my best thinking by talking to people, and this is good practice for me to consider how to both teach my children what I believe, and still be a good citizen that shows love to all people. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't think anything you've said here is offensive, nor have I said that. I don't think asking questions in a polite manner (which is what you've done), is ever offensive. (Unless you're politely asking when someone stopped beating his wife, or other obviously charged questions.)
I do think that you're wrong/rude/somewhat-bad-but-not-evil if you believe that homosexual marriage is morally wrong, but, as I said before, I have a much bigger problem with your entire religion. So somehow I doubt we'll often see eye-to-ey on whether a belief or position is moral or immoral.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Hmmm. Okay, Jhai.
Now I'm curious as to where we DO agree, religiously/morally. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Is there any possible way for me to reinforce my teachings to my children, without seeming impossibly rude?
And here we see the core of your real objection: that you DO believe that permitting same-sex marriage will encourage social acceptance of homosexuality, thereby forcing you to explain to your children why your religion requires you to disapprove of something that so many other people consider acceptable. It's a reversal of the current situation -- where a gay couple needs to feel awkward about introducing themselves to children -- and you would prefer the status quo: that they continue to feel awkward about your dislike.
And yet, as pointed out, you already have to explain this to your children. In fact, according to the doctrines of your religion, you have to explain to your own kids why you and your husband aren't technically as married as you could be. Presumably you've learned this skill; you'll use it every time your kids run into somebody deformed or overweight or drunk in public. If you haven't learned this skill, you really should; far, far more important than teaching your kids how important it is not to marry someone of their own gender is teaching them how to live in a world in which lots of people make choices they wouldn't make, every single moment of every day.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And I think it's a fair question, since my definition of marriage is fairly religious, and not limited to government-approved contractual obligation. I am wondering, how will a redefinition of marriage apply to me in my daily life?
Oh, that's an easy one - there will be no substantive affect on your daily life, unless you are a judge that performs civil marriage ceremonies, or perhaps if you work somehow with benefits administration.
Okay, so this is something that same-sex couples feel affects their daily life in a significant manner--not getting to use terms like "husband", "wife" and "marriage" is emotionally deletorious--but I won't notice it?
*musing on that* But if it's such a big deal, surely it will affect even me, somehow...
Now you're just being obnoxious. For the record, even if my partner and I manage to get married, we will probably not use the term "wife" for each other. It's not about that label. It's not only about cultural discrimination. It's about legal and financial discrimination.
And you're being dishonest as hell to pretend that you don't know that by now.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: So, those of you who are homosexual, would you be offended if I either tell my kids, "Save your questions, we'll discuss this later", or, "The government recognizes marriage between two men and two women, but in our religion we don't."
Who cares what you tell your kids?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: I fear there is not, no matter how much goodwill I bear to SS couples.
That being equal, approximately, to zero.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
No, I don't know if that's my motivation.
Let me explain further my interest in this issue: My grandmother is Japanese, my grandfather is Swedish-American.
When they married, I am told my by family that there was a small bill passed in Utah legislature to make Japanese-American marriages legal, so that my grandparents' marriage would be recognized.
Also, my grandparents were the first Japanese-American couple sealed in the Salt Lake Temple.
So, you see, I haven't actually decided how I feel about gay marriage. I haven't decided if I oppose it or not.
If I did oppose it, and was firm in that opposition, I wouldn't have even bothered visiting this thread. I would probably have thought, "That's wrong and they know it" and would have gone on to different threads.
But I am undecided.
After all, right up until my grandparents got married, their marriage was considered illegal in the US (they got married in Japan, in a Russian orthodox ceremony).
So I consider, how would I feel, if my grandparents' marriage was ruled, still was ruled, as simply wrong? as Not Allowed?
There certainly were a some people who opposed it on racial grounds. Thankfully, they were few, and got fewer each decade.
So that's why I'm here, asking questions.
Not polemicizing--sorry to have bothered you, Lisa. And I do think the recent act passed in CA affords similar legal benefits to ss unions; if it doesn't, then I am open to legislation that does offer that.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Wow, Lisa, I don't dislike you, but you sure seem to dislike me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So in fact, you want to use the power of the state dictate when I can, or cannot, buy milk, in order to satisfy some vague longing for a 'better perspective'? Is this seriously what you are arguing, or am I just totally misunderstanding you? Because if it is, then dude, you are just a walking argument for using the power of the state to suppress all religion.
I haven't used any religious arguments whatsoever; in fact, in neither case could me feelings on the subject be accurately expressed as "religious." I think it's interesting that you jumped to that (IMO, irrational) assumption.
What appears to me to lie at the heart of your argument is a presumption that you have a right to "buy milk" whenever you please, and that a grocer has the right to sell you milk whenever (s)he pleases. This is precisely the presumptive "as long as no harm is done" type argument I described in an earlier post. I don't begrudge you your viewpoint, but its not a presumptive morality that I share.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
"I'm not making a religious argument, I'm just saying that <insert argument almost exclusively justified religiously>. I find it strange that you jump to the concludion that I'm making a religious argument."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Legally restricting what transactions consenting individuals are permitted to take part in strikes me as being rather counter to the principle of agency which the LDS church seems to hold in high regard.
I'm unsure why you feel the principle of agency is counter to legal restrictions on the actions of anyone, consenting adults or not. Agency is merely the principle that we can choose, and by choosing we can grow. In fact, agency presupposes that there are consequences attached to our choices (cf, 2 Nephi 2:27). The consequences mentioned in the scriptures are (primarily) spiritual consequences, but it certainly doesn't preclude the application of additional, temporal consequences.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: "I'm not making a religious argument, I'm just saying that <insert argument almost exclusively justified religiously>. I find it strange that you jump to the concludion that I'm making a religious argument."
Did I justify it religiously? Do you find it impossible to conceive there would be a non-religious argument for profanity fines or blue laws?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm unsure why you feel the principle of agency is counter to legal restrictions on the actions of anyone, consenting adults or not.
I didn't mean to imply that agency and legal restritions could not coexist, but when you micromanage to the point where you determine what days of the week people may be permitted to engage in commerce, there's not much meaning to agency any more. It doesn't mean much to keep the sabbath if it's illegal to not do so.
If there is no compelling state interest in regulating a given activity, the state should not regulate that activity.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Did I justify it religiously? Do you find it impossible to conceive there would be a non-religious argument for profanity fines or blue laws?
It's not impossible to conceive of, it's just unlikely that these arguments are purely non-religious in origin and motivation. It's becoming all too common for a religious preference to be repackaged into a supposedly secular argument to pretend that the motivations behind it are not religious. The whole ID movement is based on this conceit.
The most powerful organizations behind the passage of these laws are religious in nature, if not the religions themselves.
I'm actually a little confused by all the religious people who are trying to advance secular reasons for their opposition to SSM. Why not just state the plain truth that the Presidency or the Vatican (or whatever authority applies) have made it clear that they oppose SSM?
The secular arguments advanced in leiu of just stating the dotrinal position of the church are irreperably weak and amount mostly to "You can't *prove* this won't be a disaster, so we shouldn't do it." That's not any more persuasive than "Because God said so."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: If there is no compelling state interest in regulating a given activity, the state should not regulate that activity.
This, again, presumes a definition of "compelling state interest" which I do not necessarily share, and which I think runs counter to that used for several hundred years. I understand that many people believe that the government should stay out of their business if there's no "harm" (again, I think the definition of this is a very tricky issue and rapidly leads down a rabbit hole). But I think that such a concept a new basis for law, and I feel very uncomfortable with shifts in the idealogical basis of our legal system.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:and i'm athiest.
No you're not. I'm athier than you.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think the definition of this is a very tricky issue and rapidly leads down a rabbit hole
And "God says so" is less tricky? It seems like the gradual elimination of blue laws is an admission of how tricky it is to apply "<my particular version of> God says so" to a diverse population.
quote:But I think that such a concept a new basis for law, and I feel very uncomfortable with shifts in the idealogical basis of our legal system.
"Compelling state interest", as a component of strict scrutiny, has been part of the judicial system for decades in evaluating the constitutionality of a law.
[ May 19, 2008, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who cares about churches?
Um, members of the church.
I guess with everyone else duking it out over something that's really unimportant compared to the bigger threats to society and sanity, I might as well join in this debate. I will refrain from using religious arguments in this post, because I know half the guys in here wouldn't take them seriously. That's not really a big deal for me; my views on homosexual marriage are based on my perception of the purpose of marriage, which was formed, believe it or not, quite a while before I started taking God seriously.
In the church, marriage is a (often eternalized) covenant between a man and a woman. It's purpose is to create family.
In the state, marriage has legal connotations; the government provides benefits to married couples, all of these which were made in the interest of protecting "family values."
Nowhere does any of this talk about sexual desires. It is true that between straight couples, they usually first notice each other by suggestion of coming-of-age hormones, but if their "love" does not transcend biological urges, I pity such a couple. It might explain the current divorce rate.
Like life itself, marriage is more than just chemistry, if not in science then in philosophy. Marriage ought to be the strongest, most resilient, and flexible bond that can exist between two beings, and sexual desires are only a disposable hook that makes a starting latch, so that the rope can be tied (beware the extended metaphors!!!). This magnificent fiber is woven not only to bridge the couple, but to support the child that springs from it. It is through marriage that the sole practicality of sexuality is realized; the creation of a completely new being, made half from the genes of the man and half from the genes of the woman, with the intent of raising the child in a family to adulthood and beyond. I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin (not inherently a religious term).
That being said, I have no qualms about two close friends of the same gender adopting a child and raising him. A homosexual couple is capable of having partnership, "love," and even love. Their union, however, is not marriage because it does not "realize the sole practicality of sexuality," see previous paragraph. The government should be able to acknowledge the closeness and trust of best friends, regardless of the "disposable hook" that got them together.
I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator. Which is one of the pieces of rationale for allowing gay marriages; they have a right to be happy too! I think the politically-correct society is far too eager to find homosexuality where it is nonexistent. I mean, C-3PO and R2-D2 aren't gay! Frodo and Sam aren't gay! If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade the same way Dumbledore fell in love with Grindlewald. It's a mark of one's willingness to see everything sexually, or, to put it more bluntly, one's enslavement to his own hormones, to think think any of these resilient friendships are driven by an evolutionarily unsound version of lust juice.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: C'mon, doesn't everyone itch to enlighten an ignorant bigot like me?
I daresay that is what has been attempted for the last few pages, but it seems to be hitting a rather dense rubber wall. Whenever somone posts something that is a direct and verifiable counterexample to one of your claims, or even just a cogent and clear assessment of a logical problem in the reasoning you present, it does not seem to be noticed.
[For example, consider the many ways in which a couple cannot currently achieve all of the tangible secular benefits of "marriage" without actually becoming married. Rejecting that such barriers exist seems to be a fundamental basis of your argument, and it was clearly demonstrated to be untenable -- by multiple people -- yet there was no response from you. Except to continue as if that never happened, even though it was a fundamental point.]
Like Lisa, I'm seeing rhetorical stance-taking and polemicizing, not a good faith effort to have a conversation, much less get informed.
Regardless, welcome to Hatrack. Hope you have a good time here.
[ May 19, 2008, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin.... I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator.... If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade...
In all seriousness, have you considered the possibility that you might be gay? Your post here, for a lot of reasons, really triggers my gaydar.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
So now we're back to a situation in which infertile heterosexuals should also be prevented from marrying. Unless there is more to marriage than reproduction, or if marriage can be valuable without producing new life through procreative sex between spouses.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin (not inherently a religious term).
You do know that even most churches recognize purposes for sex besides reproduction, yes? One of them being strengthening the bonds of affection between spouses.
If I agreed with you, then having sex with my husband right now would be harmful to the strength of our relationship, since I'm already pregnant. And having sex during the ten months after our first child was born would have been harmful, since it took that long to start ovulating again. But I'm pretty sure the opposite is the case.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin (not inherently a religious term)."
Are you quoting that because you agree with it and thinks it needs to be said again? If so, I think this is one of those types of statements that can only properly be evaluated by the people involved in a relationship, and trying to teach this belief as if it can be adopted in practice by any couple does more harm then good.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness! Even the Pope thinks that there is a purpose to sex beyond procreation!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Marriage ought to be the strongest, most resilient, and flexible bond that can exist between two beings, and sexual desires are only a disposable hook that makes a starting latch, so that the rope can be tied (beware the extended metaphors!!!). This magnificent fiber is woven not only to bridge the couple, but to support the child that springs from it.
So we can't let the scissors of gay cut through the moral fiber of the web of religious holy yanrness because the incision of homogay when allowed to take place on equal footing means that you are not optimally continuing the process of life which is how you bridge a straight heterosexual bridge of ungay purity spanning a wreath of children over a valley of debauchery and hormonal satiation through entirely functional application of clinically necessary sexual urges. Of thread.
Got it.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: So now we're back to a situation in which infertile heterosexuals should also be prevented from marrying. Unless there is more to marriage than reproduction, or if marriage can be valuable without producing new life through procreative sex between spouses.
Preventing infertile heterosexuals from marrying is impractical.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: C'mon, doesn't everyone itch to enlighten an ignorant bigot like me?
I daresay that is what has been attempted for the last few pages, but it seems to be hitting a rather dense rubber wall. Whenever somone posts something that is a direct and verifiable counterexample to one of your claims, or even just a cogent and clear assessment of a logical problem in the reasoning you present, it does not seem to be noticed.
[For example, consider the many ways in which a couple cannot currently achieve all of the tangible secular benefits of "marriage" without actually becoming married. Rejecting that such barriers exist seems to be a fundamental basis of your argument, and it was clearly demonstrated to be untenable -- by multiple people -- yet there was no response from you. Except to continue as if that never happened, even though it was a fundamental point.]
Like Lisa, I'm seeing rhetorical stance-taking and polemicizing, not a good faith effort to have a conversation, much less get informed.
Regardless, welcome to Hatrack. Hope you have a good time here.
But I thought that having legal/civil parity was what the DOmestic Partners Act was all about.
How is it not?
I am trying to learn. I'm sorry that my asking questions sounds like absolute obtuseness to you. I guess there really is such thing as a dumb question, eh?
What is a "good faith effort", then?
I am asking about the motivation behind same-sex marriage. Also I am getting to know people who are strongly in favor of it,and I want to make friends with people, both by being interested in what they are thinking here, and in making sure I don't engage in a faux pas out in public.
I am starting to get the feeling that a "good faith effort" is pretty much dumbly nodding and agreeing mutely to what people say here.
If there was someone who didn't like Mormons, and they wanted to know more about the church, I wouldn't tell them how offensive they are for not believing in my version of the gospel and tell them they are being offensive by asking questions.
How else do you want people to get informed?
I had assumed that people in favor of gay marriage would be eager to discuss it.
I am asking, What is the point of the Domestic Partners Act, if it doesn't provide parity under the law? If it does such a poor job, then why would anyone support it?
I don't assume anyone here is a Very Bad Person for disagreeing with me--otherwise I'd have to assume a lot of people here are Very Bad People. And I don't.
Would it please you, then, if I shrugged and said, "You're right, you can't change my mind, you're all wrong and I refuse to discuss it anymore"?
[ May 20, 2008, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Sachiko ]
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And since legal parity is offered to same-sex couples under the Domestic Partners Act, the same legal rights as heterosexual couples have, then I don't see how a ss couple that is called "married" versus a "united" one (or married/Married) will be subject to any more or less discrimination.
Using different terms is inherently polarizing. That's why "separate but equal" is not achievable, even in principle.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Sachiko, if you edit a post to add substantial information or additional commentary, it is considered courteous here to make explicit note of that. BlackBlade notes this here.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What is a "good faith effort", then?
You could try by answering the prior comments referenced in this next quotation:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: [For example, consider the many ways in which a couple cannot currently achieve all of the tangible secular benefits of "marriage" without actually becoming married. Rejecting that such barriers exist seems to be a fundamental basis of your argument, and it was clearly demonstrated to be untenable -- by multiple people -- yet there was no response from you. Except to continue as if that never happened, even though it was a fundamental point.]
If you need me to spell out exactly where and how they directly contradicted your claims, I can do so. [Actually, I probably won't, for reasons noted below. It should be fairly clear, though.]
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: I am starting to get the feeling that a "good faith effort" is pretty much dumbly nodding and agreeing mutely to what people say here.
Nope. Plenty of people here -- some of LDS faith, some not -- have managed to disagree with same-sex marriage without interacting in ill faith. I see the problem here as being in the interaction, not in the content.
quote:If there was someone who didn't like Mormons, and they wanted to know more about the church, I wouldn't tell them how offensive they are for not believing in my version of the gospel and tell them they are being offensive by asking questions.
Again, it is not the questions, but the interaction. The way the questions are asked, not the content of the questions. I am sure it is perfectly possible for someone to ask questions about the LDS faith in a way that is disingenuous and offensive.
Some have done it here, in fact.
quote:How else do you want people to get informed?
I had assumed that people in favor of gay marriage would be eager to discuss it.
Well, yes, with someone who is willing to engage in appropriate discussion. I would like that to be you.
Look, I may be the only person who gets this vibe from you. (Well, and Lisa, too, obviously.) Or it may be that other people do but are more reserved about expressing it, whether out of common courtesy or other reasons. No matter. I am bothering to engage you on this because you strike me as an intelligent, well-spoken person with interesting things to say.
I'm not so motivated as to spar idly unless I do get the feeling you are speaking in good faith. Nor if you cannot figure out what is meant by "good faith" irrespective of the time I have spent to clarify it. That would be tilting at windmills, and I have better things to do. As, I'm sure, do you.
But I figured it was worth a last shot.
quote:I am asking, What is the point of the Domestic Partners Act, if it doesn't provide parity under the law? If it does such a poor job, then why would anyone support it?
I'd rather see you answer the earlier comments addressed to your prior conversation before moving on to another topic like this. (Specifically, where you argued that there were no substantial benefits to marriage that were not available to same sex partners.) Making the topic of the conversation a moving target only frustrates the matter and leads to a lack of clarity.
quote:Would it please you, then, if I shrugged and said, "You're right, you can't change my mind, you're all wrong and I refuse to discuss it anymore"?
Actually, it would please me if you wouldn't construct a straw man to stand in my stead. This, too, feels disingenuous to me.
You may not be aware that we have many members here who are practicing LDS. Many of them (and others) agree with you on this topic, some do not, but most all of us like and respect one another. In good part this is because there is a shared history of actually trying to understand one another, to move forward together in understanding, and to assume the Principle of Charity to one another. (It doesn't always happen that way, and less so frequently, but that may well be due to the fact that many oldtimers have moved off to private fora out of frustration with just these sorts of issues.)
Now, I note I haven't been very charitable to you in my 2 posts. That is my lack. I have actually tried very hard to be in my own head, but I cannot. It may just be my further failing, as I haven't been able to work out a way to engage with you in a more tactful way. My apologies for that, and I will leave it at this.
(Though I'll continue reading and happily take my lumps from my peers as they filter through. )
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Look, I may be the only person who gets this vibe from you.
I get the vibe too, I'm just not the vibe-pointing-out type. Not that I don't think it should be pointed out. I appreciate your contribution here, CT. It cuts through the fluff to highlight some key difficulties in the conversation here.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I figured there were people here who are practicing LDS, since it seems as though OSC attracts many.
I'm sorry I offended you. I don't always manage to read every post--I went back through the thread and realized I totally missed a long post of Lisa's when scrolling through.
Sorry about that. I try not to ignore anyone; however, I also am jumping up and doing other things in between stolen minutes at the computer. That's my lack, and I apologize.
I assure you that I mean my questions in a friendly manner; however, I seem to entirely lack the ability to put that friendliness through via the written word.
I'll go ask obnoxious questions somewhere else, then. Pardon my intrusion, everyone, and thank you for your forbearance. Not to sound cheesy, but I figure, we're all God's children, and if I am ignorant on an issue, it's up to me to go to the source, so to speak, and get myself enlightened. Unfortunately, I tend to not accept just any answer, and I can see where that would be frustrating to you all.
And, ClaudiaTherese, I'm sorry I did not have the proper posting form, and tried your patience so much with incorrect arguing. Thank you for your welcome to Hatrack.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(I don't know, MattP. I think I'm likely to do more harm than good. But thanks!
At this level of irritability, I know to assign myself a few days in the corner, far away from Hatrack. )
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Sorry, MattP.
I admit, I get the vibe that it would be nearly impossible for me to say something here that wouldn't bug the snot out of many people here.
But I wanted to keep plugging away and try to ask friendly questions, but they came off wrong. I am sorry.
Okay, really going away and not bugging you guys anymore. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Sachiko, I won't be around for awhile anyway (as per above). If it is best for you to be elsewhere, then that certainly is the decision you should make. However, it is not necessary to do so.
And if you do, you should know that there is a longstanding tradition of welcoming people back who have taken a leave of absence, without any need for explanation whatsoever. It's generally a nice place, people generally manage to be pretty polite ( ), and there is a wealth you have to contribute, I'm sure.
I've gotten old and cranky, and you had the pleasure of being hit with two barrels of my surly right in the midst of what seems to be a busy time for you. My apologies, again. There were so many people writing to you that I'm not surprised you missed Lisa's long post. Happens to most everyone some time or another.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Sorry. I don't know if it would be ruder to reply, or ruder to not reply.
Thank you, in any case.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There is the dilemma, eh?
Well, time for my bed, and time for my break away from HatCrack. I do hope you stay, you know.
And should we meet up again, I will make sure I am more truly welcoming. All the best.
---
Edited to add: Hah! You didn't need a "welcome," as you are an oldtimer yourself. Again, my apologies -- I'm sure that came off as condescending, but I really didn't see. I read the "4" as an "8."
I think you were starting to post right at the time I was at the busiest in my life. Sorry I missed you in 2004, but I imagine I would have been even more impossible then. *twinkle
Anyway, welcome back to Hatrack.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Sachiko, you still haven't answered the question as to why allowing Lisa to marry will cause large amounts of demonstrable harm. I am startin' to think you maybe can't. Personally I don't think it would make a big difference either way. Our great-great grandchildren are going to wonder what all the fuss was about as they genetically modify themselves to be without genitalia, is my guess.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Wow - she just misses the point over and over and over again, doesn't she?
Scahiko - you have brought up many concerns and questions that people have addressed clearly & thoughtfully. You have never acknowledged this, just moved onto another argument about why there shouldn't be gay marriage. That's extremely frustrating to those of us who are answering your questions patiently. Your questions aren't offensive, your lack of admiting that you were wrong - saying "oh, I guess I was wrong that homosexuals can gain equal rights under the law without marriage" - is the problem. There's no use discussing or arguing with a brick wall, and that's what you seem like.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am starting to get the feeling that a "good faith effort" is pretty much dumbly nodding and agreeing mutely to what people say here.
Sorry, mang — while that feeling is not exactly the case, it's truth that you are going to incense people if you insist that they should be maintained as legal inferiors for the sake of society.
It would be just the same as if a person with a racist religion opposed to miscegenation was asking "Is there any way I can maintain my belief that schools should remain segregated without, you know, stepping on any toes?" — you're essentially wondering why you can't advocate discrimination (or 'only not agreeing upon equality' or 'being for separate equality' all of which are the same thing) without seeming 'impossibly rude' to the discriminated-upon.
Too bad it's something a person can't fairly request. Welcome to the cultural impasse.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin.... I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator.... If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade...
In all seriousness, have you considered the possibility that you might be gay? Your post here, for a lot of reasons, really triggers my gaydar.
The above sentiment from C3PO didn't strike me as latent homosexuality (though I admit to have no functional gaydar), but it did seem to me to be sad.
I love having sex with my wife. It isn't some hook that got disposed of once we were in a "deeper" relationship. It's part of what makes our relationship deep. It's not the only part, but it's a joyous, important part that has yet to wither away... Though having a one-month-old certainly requires postponement of it, and gladly so. To restate a slightly different way, I don't have a finite level of depth that I must mete out or partition across the various facets of my relationship with my wife; love is infinite. I admit to feeling a bit bummed that you see the need minimize sex in your life, but more power to you if it works for you.
Stupid analogy to illustrate this all yet again (sorry it popped into my head just now): I'd rather build a larger pool to fit my love, all my loves, of my wife into, rather than keep any part of it in a thermos and dump the rest down the toilet.
-Bok
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
quote:"What disparities exist, that cannot be solved through civil unions?"
IMO that's a flawed question. The blue stands for freedom, the white stands for equality, but the red stands for solidarity. (yeah, I'm aware that's the French flag, not the American one -- nonetheless).
Even if "civil union" satisfied the quest for equality - it would still be deficient in regards to solidarity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If this were France, that would be relevant.
That's not just me being flippant. There are many things the countries have in common, but they don't share all of them. Something being relevant to France is not an argument for its implementation in the United States.
More specifically, solidarity isn't a big American value.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Anyways, it's a moot point, since, as the California Supreme Court correctly showed, civil unions do not pass the equality test - "separate but equal" is not equal.
There's a very good article on why the California ruling is such a watershed case here. In particular, as the article points out, this is the first time that a court has applied strict scrutiny to a case involving the rights of homosexuals;
quote:There are, however, circumstances under which the reason for a law must be more than rational; it must be compelling and the law must be drawn as narrowly as possible to meet that need. This is called "strict scrutiny" and kicks in when a law singles out for disparate treatment a group that has long been subjected to discrimination (known as a "suspect class") or when a law restricts a "fundamental right."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Wow, Lisa, I don't dislike you, but you sure seem to dislike me.
No, I'm sure you don't dislike her, you just want to deny her equal rights.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
[quote]I love having sex with my wife. It isn't some hook that got disposed of once we were in a "deeper" relationship.[quote]
Personally, I think the functional notion of our sexuality as a 'disposable hook' comes off as an utter tragedy.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Sachiko, if you need to leave, you're certainly wise to do so. I'll be sorry to see you go, though, and will hope to see you return.
As CT has mentioned, people are feeling frustrated with you because they've felt that you have been selectively ignoring the various posts that refute the assertion that you've placed as the keystone of your argument. Now, I hear you about missing people's posts--that happens to all of us, especially when there are tons of people replying to us.
One such post was written by MattP at 4:06 PM on May 19th. The text of it read
quote:
quote:And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means,
All of the civil/legal benefits can not be obtained by other means. A power of attorney may grant some subset of marriage rights, but it does achieve full parity.
Take a look at the number of documents that need to be prepared, along with the caveats about their enforcability in different juridictions, at this site:
All of that just to get a portion of the benefits that occur automatically when a couple is married. And that page is only covering estate planning issues.
If you were to respond to that post, either to point out the flaw in Matt's thinking or to acknowledge his point, it would probably go a long way toward ending both their frustration and the frustration that you're no doubt feeling at having your motives questioned.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin.... I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator.... If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade...
In all seriousness, have you considered the possibility that you might be gay? Your post here, for a lot of reasons, really triggers my gaydar.
Is this helpful?
("Oh, I guess I AM gay! thanks Tom!")
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'd like to address that, because I think it is important.
Having a crush on a member of the same sex does not necessarily mean you are gay. Especially, especially, when you are a kid, or when you are transitioning from being a kid to being an adult.
That's why I am so annoyed by children who are coded as gay in movies, like in School of Rock. Nothing has settled yet, and putting that kind of pressure on kids is entirely unfair. Just like playing doctor when you're five doesn't mean you're going to grow up to be an exhibitionist, having a crush when you're in junior high doesn't mean you're gay. People are learning what it means to be friends, what it means to be sexual, and what the difference is between all the different kinds of love.
I also think that it is a cheap rhetorical technique to accuse those opposed to same sex marriage of being gay themselves. It's not an argument - it's an attempt to shut someone up.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
While not invalidating your point as a whole, katharina, I want to quickly point out that there are plenty of gay & lesbian adults who admit to knowing their sexual preference pretty young - like 8 or 10.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Pet peeve warning!
quote:All of the civil/legal benefits can not be obtained by other means.
Wrong! What was meant was "Not all of the legal benefits..." Or in other words "Some of the legal benefits are not obtainable by other means". What is in fact being said is "None of the legal benefits can be obtained by other means", which is plainly untrue. Get it straight, people. Don't they teach Venn diagrams anymore?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Kat: ONE crush means nothing.
Multiple, or continuous crushes DO mean something.
I knew I liked other little girls at 4.
And I totally agree with Tom. Seeing hetsex as a "hook that goes away" pings my gaydar too. Like, he doesn't really like hetsex, he only does it... maybe because he's told he's supposed to like it... maybe because he just wants kids.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Like, he doesn't really like hetsex, he only does it... maybe because he's told he's supposed to like it... maybe because he just wants kids.
It's fruitless and rude to speculate publicly. Maybe you and Tom can email one another if you're that interested.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think the hook that goes away is supposed to be the initial strong sexual infatuation which does nearly always go away or at least settle down to a much lower intensity. From Bob, of the Bob & Tom show: Show me the most beautiful woman in the world, and I'll show you a guy who is tired of having sex with her. (paraphrased). I don't read much into C3PO's argument other than an earnest attempt to frame sexuality in a way that religious restrictions on it can be seen as sensible.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Guys, it's completely inappropriate to be speculating about 3PO's sexual orientation here. It really needs to stop.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: Oh, I alienated Tom years ago.
I *am* amused by the You and Kat vs Me and Tom angle though. That's a critical mass of something, but I don't know what.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Well, glad you can chuckle over it, hoss.
Posted by HumilityRocks (Member # 11621) on :
It seems to me that the problem here is that marriage has two distinct meanings related to the status of a relationship.
One, it has a legal status. You can go to the justice of the peace, etc... and this has implications for you related to taxes and a variety of other legal moves. This is regardless of religious affiliation. Atheists can be legally married and enjoy the benefits of that status.
Two, it has a religious status. This will normally involve a minister and religious ceremony... and some churches will have very specific things that are required of married people before they can be wed in the church and recognized as married. In this context, many believers hold marriage as a sacred activity and it means something very specific.
These folks believe that marriage is the relationship between a man and a woman and is a necessary coventant and foundation for a sexual relationship and all the things surrounding that, including intimacy and including children.
For these people, homosexuality, bestiality, sex with children, sex between unmarried people, pornography, etc... are all things that are unhealthy for us. And those kinds of sexual behavior are ethically and morally out of bounds.
Some churches would not consider a couple actually married if they were married as unbelievers and without fulfilling the specific requirements and the vows of marriage as defined by the church as a sacrament.
You can disagree with that if you want to, many do.
But the religious meaning came first.
I think most people would agree that people who are involved in a homosexual relationship should be allowed to have the legal benefits of marriage in practical ways. Even people who believe that homosexuality is wrong from a religious point of view (many of them anyway) would agree to the practical equality.
But by calling it marriage, you are asking the religious person to divorce the sacred nature and meaning of marriage from the term and cause it to mean something fundamentally different than what it means currently.
For the person to whom marriage is sacred and to whom homosexuality is sin, this is a real problem.
People asking for homosexual marriage to be recognized are asking to make something sacred allow things that they believe are wrong.
So in effect, you're asking people to set aside their belief in a sacred relationship so that you can do something they believe is wrong.
They can't do that in good conscience.
Call it something else. Civil union, whatever. And if that is some weird discrimination because of the different name, then let heterosexual unions be called civil unions too and let marriage become a strictly religious term.
People are claiming that they have the right to demand equal treatment and maybe they do.
I don't think they have the right to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years and cause those words decribing sacred things to mean something else.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
That's nice. Hinduism predates the Judeo-Christian religion(s) by quite awhile, and, as I pointed out earlier, in that religion homosexuals are free to marry.
Why do Christians get to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years longer because their religion's words describing sacred things mean something else from what it means to Hindus?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have no objection to the state starting to recognise only civil unions for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, but as a matter of practical politics it won't happen.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I don't think they have the right to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years and cause those words decribing sacred things to mean something else.
Very thoughtful post, Humility Rocks. And I appreciate yout taking time to explain why the terminology is so important to people, and I agree with much of what you said.
However, no one "owns" words or can dictate who has the right to define them. If we were to adopt that reasoning, then who would be responsible for dictating what "marriage' means? Put it up to popular vote? Get religious leaders together to get a concensus (good luck!)? See my point?
Some Christian denominations already recognize homosexual marriages. So you can't even say that all Christians are opposed to this definition of the term. The group down in Texas thought marriage could be between multiple women and girls and one man. They still called it "marriages."
Then you start to say whether or not something in the court house is a civil union and something in the church is a marriage...and it just turns into chaos.
I personally know what marriage means to me and how I define it. Nothing any homosexual or polygamous, or Hollywood couple or can ever do will diminish my personal view of marriage. (Let us please not forget plenty of heterosexual couples throughout history have done a lot to diminish the sacred nature of marriage). I'm not willing to give others power over my view of marriage as a covenant bond - that is ridiculous. If I believe my marriage is a covenant promise between myself and my husband before God - then how in the world could someone else's usage of that word affect it?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Oh, yeah, I'd be fine with civil unions if everyone got them from the state (such as what occurs in Germany), but I agree with KoM that that's unlikely to happen. Marriage for all, or marriage for none.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:I don't think they have the right to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years and cause those words decribing sacred things to mean something else.
Who is taking the meaning away from you?
As I pointed out earlier in this very thread, it's legal for two atheists to get married. Why? Because the legal definition is not related to the religious definition.
And guess what, YOU don't have to recognize gay marriage. Neither does your church.
But as long as these people are citizens and pay taxes, the government has to recognize it.
It's just taking them too long to figure that out.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Wow, Lisa, I don't dislike you, but you sure seem to dislike me.
No, I'm sure you don't dislike her, you just want to deny her equal rights.
Honestly, that's not my issue with her. The difference in my reaction to her and, say, to SenojRetep is pretty major. That's because Peter has a right to his views, as wrong as I think they are (so long as he doesn't do anything to force them on me). Sachiko is arguing dishonestly. I dislike that intensely.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But as long as these people are citizens and pay taxes, the government has to recognize it.
How literally do you intend for this sentence to be taken?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: You can disagree with that if you want to, many do.
But the religious meaning came first.
I want to, not so much disagree, but suggest that this is an oversimplification to the point of misleading. In the beginning, religion was law, and law was religion. There was no distinction, it would have been unfathomable. This worked because societies were small and largely homogeneous, and if one group interacted with another group at all, it was usually to eradicate the other group from the planet.
As societies grew, and started assimilating or tolerating disparate religions, separate, secular laws were created. This was pretty much done ad hoc, organically. People only changed those parts that were causing the biggest social frictions, by and large, leaving the rest as is.
So you are right, but as your simple statement, there is no point to it.
And even if you could prove that the religious meaning of marriage was separate and meaningful from the legal definition first, you'd be hard pressed to argue that Egyptian or Hindu definitions were the first religious meanings that survive to our knowledge. Their religious texts predate the Abrahamic religion's texts by a fair bit.
-Bok
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I'd like to address that, because I think it is important.
Having a crush on a member of the same sex does not necessarily mean you are gay. Especially, especially, when you are a kid, or when you are transitioning from being a kid to being an adult.
I agree. And the opposite is true as well. When I look back to my relationship with my best friend in 6th grade, it's pretty clear that I had a crush on him. And I definitely had a movie crush on the guy who played Marcus in B5. (I know, movie crushes are different, but still.)
I've seen people absolutely crushed by straight girls who thought a crush meant something more than it really did and who wound up realizing (after leaving wreckage behind them) that they were really straight after all.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: But by calling it marriage, you are asking the religious person to divorce the sacred nature and meaning of marriage from the term and cause it to mean something fundamentally different than what it means currently.
Nope. If it's a fundamentally religious thing, then the government shouldn't be registering it any more than the government registers baptisms or bar mitzvahs.
To the extent that the government does register it, and to the extent that the government does give economic and legal favors to those it registers it for, there is no justification for the government to restrict that to opposite sex couples only.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: For the person to whom marriage is sacred and to whom homosexuality is sin, this is a real problem.
Not really. There are millions of Catholics who don't believe in divorce. Yet the government recognizes divorce. Why should one set of religious principles be underwritten by the government, and another set ignored? That's the reason for the Establishment Clause. The government shouldn't be underwriting any religious status. To the extent that it's religious, the government shouldn't be involved. To the extent that it's not, religious principles shouldn't be involved.
Either way, your point isn't relevant in the context of government perks in a supposedly equal society.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: People asking for homosexual marriage to be recognized are asking to make something sacred allow things that they believe are wrong.
No, they are not. Having the government remove its institutionalized discrimination against same sex couples when it comes to marriage wouldn't force Christians or Jews or anyone else to recognize same sex marriages any more than the Catholic Church is currently required to recognize civil divorces.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: So in effect, you're asking people to set aside their belief in a sacred relationship so that you can do something they believe is wrong.
It's amazing how far you can go starting with a false premise. No, no one is asking that. Keep your beliefs. Just keep them out of the government.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: They can't do that in good conscience.
No one is asking them to.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: Call it something else. Civil union, whatever.
No. Not unless you're going to call it that for opposite sex couples as well. When a man and a woman go to get married, let them get married in their church or synagogue or mosque or ashram or whatever, and let them register a civil union with the government. If the government must be involved. That, or call it marriage for everyone.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: And if that is some weird discrimination because of the different name, then let heterosexual unions be called civil unions too and let marriage become a strictly religious term.
That's fine with me.
quote:Originally posted by HumilityRocks: I don't think they have the right to take away the meaning of sacred words and ceremonies from people who have celebrated those words and meanings for thousands of years and cause those words decribing sacred things to mean something else.
No one is asking them to. Hell, the English language isn't even that old, so your claim that it's taking away "the meaning of sacred words" is kind of silly.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Which additional context did you request?
Believe me, I'm all too eager to talk about myself. Just ask and I'll tell you.
I just wondered in what context the topic of your "not real" marriage comes up. It it just chatting with other women in the ward, during home teacher visits, during tithing settlement? I've been steeped in LDS culture for about 15 years now, and I can't think of any reasonable place for that topic to come up beyond, perhaps, discussions with the bishopric. I guess I could see the "What temple were you sealed in?" question leading to an admission of "none", but I'm a little astonished that this response would be met with even subtle scorn.
I know the topic has drifted since this comment, but my experiences line up more with Sachiko. My dad was not a member, my mom was. And the fact that my parents weren't sealed came up a lot. It was socially very isolating. When we were older, my mom talked about how difficult things were for her. My dad later converted and her whole relationship with people changed. I am very glad that this is not an issue for MattP's wife and I would love to see that experience be universal, however right now, it isn't.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:But as long as these people are citizens and pay taxes, the government has to recognize it.
How literally do you intend for this sentence to be taken?
I read "has to" as "is morally obliged to".
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:But as long as these people are citizens and pay taxes, the government has to recognize it.
How literally do you intend for this sentence to be taken?
I read "has to" as "is morally obliged to".
Not just morally, but under the laws and rules that the government claims to uphold.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I was actually referring to the "citizens and pay taxes" end of the equation.
Sorry-- should have said.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I was actually referring to the "citizens and pay taxes" end of the equation.
Sorry-- should have said.
Still confused. Please explain further.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is this a fair restatement of your point, Javert:
quote:As long as people retain their good citizenship and pay their taxes honestly, the government has a moral obligation to support their choice of marriage.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Is this a fair restatement of your point, Javert:
quote:As long as people retain their good citizenship and pay their taxes honestly, the government has a moral obligation to support their choice of marriage.
Pretty much.
I liked mine. It sounded more inflammatory. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the religious meaning came first.
I utterly reject this claim. Prove it.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I'm going to address Sachiko's question about The Domestic Partnership Act.
Actually, it doesn't do what the name implies. On the federal level, it grants limited rights to a very limited number of people, and has far more to do with Common Law marriage that Same Sex marriage.
On the federal level -
"The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act"
'Support Equal Treatment in Benefits for Federal Employees'
"The Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act would provide domestic partnership benefits to all federal civilian employees on the same basis as spousal benefits. These benefits, available for both same- and opposite-sex domestic partners of federal employees, would include participation in applicable retirement programs, compensation for work injuries, and life and health insurance benefits."
As an example of a State Domestic Partners law
State of New Jersey-
Domestic Partnership Act of 2004 -
"Under the Act, a domestic partnership is established when both persons have a common residence and are jointly responsible for each other's common welfare as evidenced by joint financial arrangements or joint ownership of real or personal property. Both persons must not be related by blood or affinity up to and including the fourth degree of consanguinity, be at least 18 years of age and of the same sex or of the opposite sex age 62 years or older. "
As you can see both are very limit in both depth and scope.
So, once again, I say it is as simply as this, can you LEGALLY justify denying the rights and responsibilities, and benefits of marriage to a select group of people simply because you don't like them?
Let's for a moment say that if Same Sex Marriage is granted, then not far behind will be an argument for Polygamous marriages. That actually is a pretty common argument, and I don't doubt for a second that it will be made.
But, in the ancient context, Poly-marriage was all about property. The more wives you owned the more wealthy you were, or at least appeared. Also, note that this was a massively Patriarchal concept. Men who ruled the world, or at least thought they did, could have as many wives as the wanted. But, and this is a big but, wives could only have one husband.
Now, in the modern world of equal rights, that simply can't be, though certainly men would like to keep it so. If men can have more than one wife, the wives can have more than one husband. Now what happens to any reasonable or workable definition of family or marriage?
If a man has six wives and they each have six husbands, then were is the family. One wife has kids from six husbands, and each of those husbands has kids from six other wives. Where does family begin and end?
Further, once you've fathered children from six different wive who are also married to six different husband, who is financially responsible for those kids. You are their father in the sense that you are married to their mother, even though you are not the biological father, so can you selectively abandon and neglect certain children from certain wives? It really is quite confusing, both socially and legally.
This doesn't strike me as workable in a 'equal' secular society. It strikes me as so thoroughly diluting both family and marriage that it takes on no meaning at all. It is just anybody and everybody sleeping with anybody and everybody, but kindly getting a piece of paper to make it both legally and therefore morally right.
My point in even bringing up this last issue, is to say that, in my opinion, no valid argument can be made to support it, if it is enforce under 'equality under the law' concepts.
So, to the main and central issue of the discussion, is there any secular and legal reason for denying right to people simply because you don't like them.
And what kind of kettle of fish is this if we let society expand that concept? As I said earlier, my Norwegian grandmother didn't like Swedes; is that sufficient justification to discriminate against them? Many people don't like the Jews, though I've never been able to figure out why, so if we can discriminate against gays because we don't like them, then why not Jews?
Ultimately it seems that if we an discriminate against anybody, then by some stretch we can... well... discriminate against anybody.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My gay friend can have sex twenty times a day with twenty different people and not have to worry one bit about getting pregnant (or getting someone else pregnant). My female friend had sex with her husband using three forms of birth control and still ended up pregnant. Things aren't equal. And while we do allow infertile couples to marry, no one has yet suggested a practical way to eliminate infertile couples from the marriage pool (It would need to have little to no cost, eliminate only those couple with absolutely 0% chance of making babies and not be invasive).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
scholarette: Would you support such a law if one COULD stop infertile couples from getting married in a way that fit your listed criteria?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I dislike the argument that we have to allow gay marriage because it is only equal and fair. I think it unfairly dismisses the role of conception. So, I argue against the equality idea. However, I voted in favor of ssm in my state (which in Texas was pretty meaningless). I think that allowing ssm is in the best interests of the states and will create a more stable nation. So, I probably would not be in favor of a law not allowing infertile couples to marry because I think that society is better off when more people are married.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
scholarette: Glad to see you're on my side =)
But conception aside, gay couples DO frequently have children. Aren't their children as deserving of married parents as the children of heterosexual couples? Doesn't that go to the "equal and fair" argument as much as the conception issue detracts from it?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Scholarette: And couldn't this be an argument that homosexual couples are better parents? I mean, not to say that your friends are bad parents. But a gay couple will never have a baby by accident.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
True. For a gay couple, every child is a wanted child.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: scholarette: Glad to see you're on my side =)
But conception aside, gay couples DO frequently have children. Aren't their children as deserving of married parents as the children of heterosexual couples? Doesn't that go to the "equal and fair" argument as much as the conception issue detracts from it?
Well, that's a good point. Though technically, a gay person wanting to get married and refused should then say your taking away my children's rights, not you are taking away mine. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
That argument has been made.. multiple times. It's usually completely ignored.
Still, until someone comes forward and says they WOULD deny infertile straight couples the right to get married (assuming it was easy to do) the equality issue is still there.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Scholarette: And couldn't this be an argument that homosexual couples are better parents? I mean, not to say that your friends are bad parents. But a gay couple will never have a baby by accident.
When we were trying to get pregnant, the AI kept not working. We eventually succeeded with IVF. But I remember someone suggesting to us that we do the AI in the backseat of a car, since that seems to work so well for hetersexuals.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: When we were trying to get pregnant, the AI kept not working. We eventually succeeded with IVF. But I remember someone suggesting to us that we do the AI in the backseat of a car, since that seems to work so well for hetersexuals.
I think it was Adam Carolla who said on his radio show that the best way to guarantee that you'll have kids is to lose your job or get arrested.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Scholarette--the solution you are looking for is easy. Only grant marriages after conception.
Heck, to be safe, only grant marriages after conception and DNA testing to make sure the father is the father.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
*gingerly popping in*
I apologize for being boneheaded and asking about what to tell my children in public. That is rude and silly.
And I'd like to explain my earlier post about "inferiority complexes"--my seatmate in my college psych class was a self-proclaimed lesbian, and in our discussions she told me that she would feel demeaned to use a term like "married", which was a term of the heterosexual establishment. She compared it to "a black using a slave name".
Granted, my college buddy is/was not representative of all G/L/B people. But since she was the one I talked to personally, and knew, her opinion made an impact on how I think about gay rights issues.
Which is why I wondered why gay couples would want to use a term that my gay friend thought was a heterosexual term, if there is such a thing.
I never stated that SS marriages would cause harm to society.
I did ask what harm it does to gay couples to not use the term "married", if they have legal parity with heterosexual couples, and used a personal example to show what I meant. The response I recieved was basically "it's not fair, it makes gays second-class citizens." This is the answer, right?
I thought that SS couples did have legal parity under the DP Act. I thought that was the whole point of its inception--extending civil parity to SS couples.
Thank you for that overview of the DP act, Blue Wizard. From what is on the screen, I'd say that the benefits sound like the benefits I enjoy as a heterosexual spouse. I suppose my next step is reviewing what my benefits as a hetero spouse are under the law, so I can see the differences and lacks of domestic partnerships.
I am still curious, though--if the DP Act is so toothless, then why did anyone support it? It seems like it is something that pleases no one, if it doesn't do what it was supposed to do.
I do not hate gays.
I don't hate groups.
If I do dislike someone, it is in a person-by-person basis, and even then I try not to indulge.
Please don't assign motives or emotions to me, that aren't mine. It would be as unfair as me saying, "because you don't like me, or don't agree with me, or don't argue this or that way, you must dislike all heterosexuals."
I have not decided my position on this.
I want to be careful about what I decide. And I especially want to know more about this issue because, like I said earlier, I'm the descendant of a marriage that was illegal in the US when it was performed (in Japan) and was believed by some people to be morally wrong.
I'm sorry I haven't responded to everyone. That is my fault. I pop in here in between one thing and another (homeschooling five little kids, though that's not a big deal, we all have busy lives) and often will miss posts entirely.
I'm sorry if I missed anyone. I try to respond to everyone I read; sometimes my responses are in the form of questions. I see now that I should have phrased them as, "But you didn't answer this part of my question:" etc. I can see how I would appear to be a brick wall.
I do mean what I say in friendliness. I have little personal time; I try to make it count, and wasting your time with dumb arguing
(I think my arguing was unfocused; I think others differ....well, of course they differ, I think some of you intensely dislike me, and to think, you haven't even gotten to know me well enough to really be offended by me! )
and wasting my own time with making enemies when I could be elsewhere making friends and having a better time is kinda dumb.
Blue Wizard, thanks again. Sorry again, everyone. I am trying to smooth things over, but I'm, no doubt, being utterly offensive to some even still. I apologize for have such a heavy tread; I had hoped sitting in the corner would mollify some of you; I'll return there now.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Best way not to make enemies is let other people live their lives the way they need to live it.
Or at least, if you DO make enemies, they will be the right enemies.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The federal Domestic Partners law has not yet passed (as far as I can tell), and, anyways, it only helps those who are civil federal employees, which is rather a small subset of the entire country. Most state versions help with state legal situations, but because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, these rights are not conferred on a federal level.
I believe that many of the GLBT community feel like theses acts are not enough, but anything that helps make their lives a bit easier is welcome, even if it's a half measure.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: That argument has been made.. multiple times. It's usually completely ignored.
Still, until someone comes forward and says they WOULD deny infertile straight couples the right to get married (assuming it was easy to do) the equality issue is still there.
If I was actually opposed to ssm, I would probably be willing to toss out the infertile from the marriage pool as well. I like to be logically consistent.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Sachiko.
Why is the term Married so important to some gay couples?
As you've witnessed, to some it does not matter.
To others its a step in a political agenda to gain recognition and to remove the stigma that their sexuality has forced them to endure.
But to most it is a safety thing.
As long as there is one option given to two sets of people, but labeled differently, no matter how identical those two options are they will not stay equal long.
George Orwell, in his classic "Animal Farm" put it best. "All animals are created equal. Some are just more equal than others." So too would bias and prejudice creep into the system. Real marriage would get this benefit, but civil unions would not. While they started off equal it would be politically easier to start picking on the Civil Unions as they are not "real marriages."
However, once the buearocracy starts registering all marriages--gay or straight--together in their massive databases, even direct legislative action would be hard pressed to cut out one group for special demerits.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
Good thread.
Honestly, I believe that if there were more support for SS relationships within the Judeo-Christian systems, there would be less promiscuity, teen suicide, and drug use.
Why?
Imagine spending adolescent years acting straight, voicing opinions not your own, and essentially not being yourself. Having your parents discover your attraction to the same sex, especially after years of hearing how horrible it is, would be the end of the world.
What solution is there?
I mean, aside from being a devil-bred-hellbound-freak-of-nature-who-deserves-to-be-ridiculed-beaten-and-dehumanized-far-and-wide...you seem pretty normal to you. You like dogs and cats, play 2nd chair in the orchestra, have a 3.6 GPA.
But still a freak.
Fast forward a few years. You hate yourself. You hoped it was a phase but it's been long enough. Everytime you go along with the gay bashing, the "act", a piece of self-respect walks away from you.
You've got it down to a science.
1) Add just a hint of grit to your voice. You don't have a lisp really, but you just want to make sure. After all, look what happened to that Shepard kid.
2) Give a good natured laugh when your cabinmates take about their views on a girls anatomy. Don't want to rock the boat, and after all there's that Shepard kid...they could ask questions. Quick, think of a female celebrity you'd "do".
3) Don't attend PE classes. The computer increases hand-eye coordination, and nobody can find out about you on cyberspace. You really like it, and spend time there having fun between a monochrome life.
4) Side-to-side head movement of any sort while standing at the urinal is an instant indicator. You don't feel the need to move really, but gotta make sure so you stare fixedly at a point in the tiling.
5) You consider going to a GLBT center, but they're all freaks. And you're not a freak right? Going there would definitely mean you're a freak, so perhaps this act is better. At least everyone will still hang out with you.
You're no longer doing well in school. Why bother, when you're not going to have kids, a family, or grow old with someone you love? At least you can offer bubble blowers to the wedding guests as they go outside to greet your best friend.
Life's a barren road. You still don't know what career you're going to choose.
So you just get by. A monochrome lifestyle.
Finally, when you realize how many years have been wasted, you rebel against your religion, society. Screw everyone, and then you go and screw everyone who fancies you. Gotta make up for lost time. Drugs, sure! Unprotected sex, sure! I know it's wrong, but screw 'em all. They hurt me, blahh.
Or...
You grow up learning that loving the same sex, while not the majority, is a variation on a theme and has been around since the dawn of human civilization.
You have your first crush on someone at church. You go out on dates, provided there is a chaperone with you, because while your community supports you, the basic ideals regarding abstinence, relationships, sex after marriage, commitment, are still things you hold true.
You want to be your best, and don't feel a need to "rebel" because you are who you are, and you are discovering aspects of yourself under loving parents and community. Why hate yourself? You aren't a freak of nature. You are allowed room to grow up and are not stunted by fears/hate of self and others. There's no need to substitute computers, TV, porn, drugs, because you are not acting beside yourself, and have healthy relationships with people and your community instead of the "act".
Sometimes, how we see the problem is the problem itself. I wonder how much pain and neurosis is caused by how our mainstream religions treat this subject? I wonder how many young people we lose each year to suicide because of this?
There's a reason our forefathers created the amendments.
I don't have Lisa's knowledge or argumentative skills, but taking a plant, putting it in a closet and not watering it creates a very sickly plant.
Who cares if it has different petals?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Scholarette--the solution you are looking for is easy. Only grant marriages after conception.
Heck, to be safe, only grant marriages after conception and DNA testing to make sure the father is the father.
Sounds like homesteading. You have to prove the land before getting the deed.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Your second scenerio would be great if it weren't for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26,27 and 1 Cor 6:9,10. Christians would have to ignore God to tell their kids it's ok to engage in a homosexual relationship. That's an awful lot to ask of them.
I agree that kids should feel safe discussing anything they're struggling with with their parents. But being comfortable with yourself doesn't necessarily mean acting on your urges. It's not fair, but God was pretty clear about His disapproval. If a person would rather indulge themselves than obey God, that's their business (and applies to a whole lot more than just homosexuality - including my own fornication).
Everyone picks their own sins. It just doesn't make them stop being sins.
It doesn't have anything to do with the legal aspects of marriage; I just wanted to be clear about my response to Earendil18.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:It's not fair, but God was pretty clear about His disapproval.
I know this has been discussed before in other places, but as I've never heard a decent answer, I need to bring it up.
So will you be keeping your children from eating shellfish and wearing poly-cotton blends then? Because both of those are 'abominations' as well. God seems very clear about his disapproval of those things.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That doesn't apply to all religions. That homosexual behavior is a sin has been reaffirmed in this dispensation. I think it is against what God wants for us, but that basis is not the scriptures cited above. The basis is modern revelation.
I agree with everything AvidReader said except for the basis he cites as evidence it is a sin to God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that Javert's point still holds. Lots of things that various religions consider sinful are allowed by society and even sanctioned by other religions. How do Jewish people explain to their children that other children can eat bacon? Is that "an awful lot to ask of them"?
I imagine that most parents have rules that their families follow - religious and otherwise - that other families don't and that most parents have to explain why their rules are different.
It isn't a reason to make something illegal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think we are talking about many different things. There is a difference between something being legal, something being sanctioned by the state, and something being neutral according to a religion, and something being sanctioned by a religion.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I don't like the idea of the government being involved in marriage. I don't like the idea of marriage licenses--tho I am married.
I think marriage should be a personal or religious affair. I think all insurance companies should honor their members putting ONE additional adult on their insurance (spouse, parent, friend--anyone) and any child who is a dependent.
In the event of a death with property disputes, I think private marriages and religious marriages should act as social contracts. I see very little need for a government license or contract.
I realize this is a simplistic (if not unrealistic) view of marriage, but emotionally I like my idea.
In my world view any couple could call their commitment anything they want-it wouldn't affect their legal benefits and there would be no final arbitrator that decides what term you can apply to yourself.
Telling a couple their marriage isn't valid or real makes as much sense to me as one religion telling another religion their baptism isn't valid. It's valid to that person if s/he believes it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What do you see as the difference between a social contract and legal contract concerning a death with property disputes?
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I am talking generalities and the direction I would like to see marriage go. Perhaps I should have clarified and said any marriage with witnesses and documentation should act as a contract that covers death and property disputes like a typical marriage license.
If I sell my car I don't need someone with a special seller's license to sign/witness the contract I write for my buyer. Adults are quite capable of writing contracts. Of course if I want a more professional contract I can always hire a lawyer, just like some married couples hire a lawyer to contract pre-nup agreements.
If there are no pre-nup agreements or explicitly detailed conditions set up in/before the marriage, then I think the union/marriage should be treated the same as a current typical state sanctioned marriage--particularly in regards to property disputes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't see how what you're saying is any different from all the other proponents of making same sex marriage sanctioned by the state. It's exactly the same, especially since you're emphatic about limiting it to two people.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Regarding the inclusion or exclusion of infertile couple in the marriage pool, does this imply that in order to get married you MUST produce children?
Is that really something that is within the governments jurisdiction to mandate? One of the longest married couples in Hollywood is Jay Leno and his wife, who have been married for something like 20 to 30 years. They have no children, so if non-reproducing couple can be eliminated from the marriage pool, does that mean we should cancel Jay Leno's long, loving, and stable marriage because he hasn't reproduced?
Again, we can pontificate on all the moral, religious, and social reasons why we don't like gay people and why they should be denied the responsibilities and benefits of marriage, but is that the purpose of government and the law?
This is a legal matter, regardless of our moral preferences. From a purely legal perspective, is there any reason to select isolated groups of people and deny them rights simply because you don't like them or agree with them?
Law and it's enforcement must be fair and uniform if we are to have a just society. As long as otherwise harmless groups can be isolated and oppressed, we have fail at 'liberty and justice for all'.
steve/bluewizard
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I can't go into much more detail because I was talking about a low level emotional outlook on how I view marriage. As I have thought more about why I believe this way and my thoughts are becoming more conceptualized, I should state what I see is the current role of marriage.
1: Social Statement of your commitment to this person.
2: Contract for Finances. I would include the marriage license as a contractual compass for dealing with stuff like filing jointly for taxes and property disputes when someone dies.
3:Benefits from Third Parties. I would include things like the ability to share insurance benefits and the ability to adopt children.
My vision of marriage being private would render point one moot. The social statement is a personal statement that doesn't need the government's sanction.
On point two I see no need for a licensed person to be a part of the contract. If you have witnesses and a document then you have a contract. Nothing changes except the need for a government license.
On point three I think the laws need to be changed. I like the idea of being able to claim any one person on your insurance. It cleans up the marriage debate and gives stable people room to take care of loved ones. Adoption is already moving more and more towards allowing stable families the ability to adopt children. I think that trend should continue.
Again, this is not a plan. It is just how I ideally see the role of government and marriage.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I see no difference between what you want and what the standard argument for same sex marriage would be, especially since you again limited it to one other person.
The only slight difference would be that the people the two signatures on the contract would marry people and no witnesses are necessary. That may or may not be a good idea. I think not - the effects of being legally bound are pervasive and serious enough that I think it's a good idea to make sure there are witnesses to it, so people can't just forge documents or coerce someone and then huge consequences turn on one person's word against another. Wills need to be notarized for a similar reason. Transfer of automobile deeds don't, but then, that kind of contract doesn't effect every aspect of two people's financial and legal lives.
[ May 21, 2008, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
lem:
The social statement is a personal statement that doesn't need the government's sanction.
No, but it does need the law to enforce and arbitrate it. Marriages are great when they start, but when they break up, things can get very bitter and vindictive. People are bitterly fighting over who gets the couch or the baseball card collection.
In some ways though, if marriage were a private contract, as you suggest, the arbitration of the dissolution of the marriage might go a lot better. Things could be clearly stated in the contract that are only assumed in standard 'courthouse' marriage. Then when thing fell apart, a neutral independent third party would simply split everything up after hearing from both sides. But the long bitter protracted legal entanglements, I think, would be reduced.
Just a thought.
Steve/bboyminn
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that Javert's point still holds. Lots of things that various religions consider sinful are allowed by society and even sanctioned by other religions. How do Jewish people explain to their children that other children can eat bacon? Is that "an awful lot to ask of them"?
Well, I don't have any problem with that when the other person is a non-Jew. Non-Jews are allowed to eat bacon. Where I run into issues is when the other person is also Jewish. A schoolmate. A relative.
My sister-in-law wants to have Tova come visit. Well, that's a lovely idea (maybe), but they don't keep kosher. And it's not like when we go to my folks for a meal and we bring stuff in. We're in Chicago and my SIL is in Virginia.
Tova came home from kindergarten once and told us that one of her friends isn't Jewish. Which is fine, but the friend in common is Jewish, and we knew it. So we asked her why she thought that, and she said that the friend goes trick or treating on Halloween. We had to explain to her that not all Jews realize that they shouldn't do that. It was an uncomfortable situation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Total derail: What is the objection to Halloween? I can think of several possible problems, I'm just curious which ones are the real ones.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We just don't do Halloween. It's a pagan holiday, and it's not for us. It has religious origins, even if it's a secular thing nowadays.
Same with Valentine's Day.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: How do Jewish people explain to their children that other children can eat bacon? Is that "an awful lot to ask of them"?
To clarify, Ear didn't ask Christians to let other people think being gay was a good thing. He asked us to tell our own kids that being gay is a good thing.
It's more like asking Jews to let their kids enjoy a tasty BLT at the family table than seeing other people eat it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader:
quote: How do Jewish people explain to their children that other children can eat bacon? Is that "an awful lot to ask of them"?
To clarify, Ear didn't ask Christians to let other people think being gay was a good thing. He asked us to tell our own kids that being gay is a good thing.
It's more like asking Jews to let their kids enjoy a tasty BLT at the family table than seeing other people eat it.
Um... no. He didn't ask anything of the sort. He said that if that was the case, "there would be less promiscuity, teen suicide, and drug use." He's probably right.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The bacon question has been answered, but FYI, poly-cotton blends are not "abominations." And anyone claiming they are needs to go back to the source they are claiming to cite. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: The bacon question has been answered, but FYI, poly-cotton blends are not "abominations."
You should see my closet. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Exceptions will be made for those still living in the 70s.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MY point in answering Sachiko's concern about how she responds to her children's questions and to Avid Readers concern is that parents often have rules for their families that other people don't have to follow. In general, the rest of society does not have to concern themselves with how their behavior (baring obscenity laws and graphic violence) is explained to other people's children. Divorce, for example, is not made illegal so that Catholic parents are spared the burden of explaining it to their kids.
I agree with Earendil that more harm is done to kids by condemnation of homosexuality than the reverse. I know countless people who at best have been driven away from God and faith and their own familes.
But that is a call that, of course, parents will have to make for themselves.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
When you get right down to it, thinking bad thoughts is the same as doing the deed, according to Jesus - so I don't see that Christians have a leg to stand on in that regard.
Isn't the whole Christian idea that everyone is a sinner, and Jesus loves you anyway?
Wrap up prejudice in any color box you want, it's still prejudice.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: When you get right down to it, thinking bad thoughts is the same as doing the deed, according to Jesus - so I don't see that Christians have a leg to stand on in that regard.
Isn't the whole Christian idea that everyone is a sinner, and Jesus loves you anyway?
Wrap up prejudice in any color box you want, it's still prejudice.
I disagree.
I have a friend trying to quit smoking (because he believes its a sin), but he can't stop thinking about it. I wouldn't tell him to just stop trying because he's screwed anyway. I think he's better off (physically and spiritually) avoiding the action despite the desire. Not engaging in the action is a first step to eventually overcoming the desire.
I believe there is value in the struggle to overcome natural desires that are sinful. I imagine many people see this as psychologically unhealthy. I disagree. I think overcoming (or at least trying to overcome) natural impulses is an integral part of growing up, spiritually.
And prejudice, IMO, would be believing that Christ loved this individual less because of his/her particular sin. I don't believe that. I don't believe Christ's love is conditional. Nor do I see myself as "better" in any sense than someone whose sins are different than my own. I do, however, believe that God's laws are real, and that simply saying "who are we to judge" does not absolve us of the need to live, and preach, God's laws. There is a principle, as trite as it sounds, of hating the sin but loving the sinner. It becomes difficult when people center their identity so completely on an activity that I deem sinful, but I still try to abide by it.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: I believe there is value in the struggle to overcome natural desires that are sinful. I imagine many people see this as psychologically unhealthy. I disagree. I think overcoming (or at least trying to overcome) natural impulses is an integral part of growing up, spiritually.
I'm sure Ted Haggarty and Larry Craig felt the same way.
Thing is, when it comes to matters of the heart, "the struggle" ends up getting you a wife and kids. A family to be destroyed when your heart wins.
Just think of the life these poor people could have had if not for having homophobia beaten into their heads from the moment they were born. Both of these men's wifes could have found themselves a heterosexual man to raise a family with. And the men themselves wouldn't have had to resort to gay hookers and anonymous bathroom sex. Maybe they could have found nice, christian gay guys and maybe even had an adopted family.
Next up: Someone likening homosexual love to Alcoholism.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Just think of the life these poor people could have had if not for having homophobia beaten into their heads from the moment they were born. Both of these men's wifes could have found themselves a heterosexual man to raise a family with. And the men themselves wouldn't have had to resort to gay hookers and anonymous bathroom sex. Maybe they could have found nice, christian gay guys and maybe even had an adopted family.
I feel bad for both Haggerty's and Craig's families, in the same way I feel bad for any family torn apart by infidelity. Like Eliot Spitzer's to take a rather topical example.
I think your argument could be extended easily to all sorts of things (besides alcoholism). The woman whose husband refuses to give up a passion for watching sports in order to help her with cleaning the kitchen, to give a trivial example. While I recognize that not all natural desires are equal, and sexuality seems to be deeply rooted in someone's sense of self, simply saying that everyone would be better off if they just accepted who they are and lived that way is (IMO) hogwash. What makes us a society is not loving our diversity - its struggling to come to a common code of conduct despite our diversity.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are different ways to not do something, like for example have gay sex. People often mistake repression as means merely not doing something that a person wants to, but that's not it at all.
It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Haggerty and Craig and all the many other anti-gay advocates who were having illicit gay sex don't do this. Instead of acknowledging that they are gay and working with that, they deny that they feel these urges and externalize it as something to be attacked. It is particularly their unhealthy way of dealing with this (or rather avoiding dealing with this) that makes them so vulnerable to the urges. Because they pretended to be something other than they were, they were at a severe disadvantage in making healthy decisions on how to behave.
The tragedy they played out goes back at least to Freud. It's so basic.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Thankfully, many people don't feel a need to conform to the social mores of another group. Especially when a large portion of science(the thing that also said "hey the earth isn't flat", and "we're not the center of the universe") says, "hey, we're shaped by our environment, and we're actually very complex sexually."
(CAUTION: Oversimplification ahead)
B:But G-d said! A:Where? B:A dubiously translated 2000+ year old book, from an earlier time in which many gods existed. Stories which helped equip people for living life! If it was weird, we feared it, and thus it was bad. A:Oh. How do you know it's true? B:Well Mommy and Daddy said so since I was five. I wanted to make them happy so I did my best.
Meanwhile, a fair percentage of teens commit suicide each year because they're different.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Thankfully, many people don't feel a need to conform to the social mores of another group. Especially when a large portion of science(the thing that also said "hey the earth isn't flat", and "we're not the center of the universe") says, "hey, we're shaped by our environment, and we're actually very complex sexually."
(CAUTION: Oversimplification ahead)
B:But G-d said! A:Where? B:A dubiously translated 2000+ year old book, from an earlier time in which many gods existed. Stories which helped equip people for living life! If it was weird, we feared it, and thus it was bad. A:Oh. How do you know it's true? B:Well Mommy and Daddy said so since I was five. I wanted to make them happy so I did my best.
Meanwhile, a fair percentage of teens commit suicide each year because they're different.
Laying aside the fact that choosing to accept science is in essence not rejecting certain social mores, what was the point of your oversimplification of Biblical belief? How are you advancing the discussion? It seems to me that being aware of the overly simple nature of your dialog makes you doubly guilty of wasting people's time.
I can appreciate that you have found much to admire in the progressive ideas of modern social science, I hope you will continue to find truth in that channel. I also hope that you will one day realize that there is also truth of great valuable within religion.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I've asked this before and gotten mixed results.
This is to those who are against the sin, not the sinner. This is to those who say giving into the act is the sin, the attraction is not.
Imagine two Christian men who are attracted to each other. It goes beyond sexual, to a deep emotional attraction.
They do not consummate the attraction. That would be a sin. They do move in together, with separate bed rooms. They hold hands in public. The whisper in each others ears, and look longingly in each others eyes. When alone, or during a deeply emotional moment, they kiss.
Would this behavior be tolerated by you?
Would this be seen as a sin.
Would this be tolerated, un-consummated attraction between two members of the same sex, holding hands and deeply in love?
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Thankfully, many people don't feel a need to conform to the social mores of another group. Especially when a large portion of science(the thing that also said "hey the earth isn't flat", and "we're not the center of the universe") says, "hey, we're shaped by our environment, and we're actually very complex sexually."
(CAUTION: Oversimplification ahead)
B:But G-d said! A:Where? B:A dubiously translated 2000+ year old book, from an earlier time in which many gods existed. Stories which helped equip people for living life! If it was weird, we feared it, and thus it was bad. A:Oh. How do you know it's true? B:Well Mommy and Daddy said so since I was five. I wanted to make them happy so I did my best.
Meanwhile, a fair percentage of teens commit suicide each year because they're different.
Laying aside the fact that choosing to accept science is in essence not rejecting certain social mores, what was the point of your oversimplification of Biblical belief? How are you advancing the discussion? It seems to me that being aware of the overly simple nature of your dialog makes you doubly guilty of wasting people's time.
I can appreciate that you have found much to admire in the progressive ideas of modern social science, I hope you will continue to find truth in that channel. I also hope that you will one day realize that there is also truth of great valuable within religion.
BlackBlade, you're right, that didn't really advance the discussion.
I remember posting a very voracious thread regarding missionaries et al, but your landmark on your missionary work helped me understand the view from the other side, and what it's like trying to share your religion with others.
I'm not very good at constructing arguments, but hopefully joining threads like these will help. You're right, how does that advance the discussion?
I do realize there are good principles and truths in religion. Religion runs throughout the entire human race. Many truths have been found throughout The Great Conversation.
I guess I'm trying to express what I see to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.
[ May 25, 2008, 02:22 AM: Message edited by: Earendil18 ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: This is to those who say giving into the act is the sin, the attraction is not.
I'm not quite your target audience since I believe both would be sins, the former being the easier to resist.
I grew up in an off-shoot of the Methodist theology. It's not about sin. Focusing on sin, in our opinion, completely misses the point of the thing.
Sure, sin is bad. Sure, you should try to avoid it. But it's paid for. It doesn't have power over you anymore unless you give it that power. Worrying about which sin is worse for you and trying to get by committing an acceptable level of sin just doesn't make sense to me. Who cares?
My belief is that we've been given the ability to have a direct relationship with God. That's the point. Whatever anyone does with their relationship (including ignoring it, rejecting it, or not believing in it altogether) is pretty much none of my business. If God doesn't lay it on their hearts to stop it, I'm not going to get involved.
If they came to me and directly asked me what I thought, I guess I'd say that they should pray about it. It's not really what they're supposed to be doing, but I know from personal experience that He's sometimes willing to let that slide. I think He's especially more likely to when you're acting from love. (He pesters me about the uncharitable, unkind parts of my personality, not the fact that I'm shacked up with my boyfriend.)
So the short answer would be yes, I think it would be a sin but no, I wouldn't feel the need to give them a hard time about it. Unless they started trying to tell other people it isn't a sin. Let's call a spade a spade now. We all sin. I just ask that we own up to it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It it always curious to me how homosexuality, which compared to other things gets barely mentioned in Scripture - not even once by Jesus - gets so much attention when things that are clearly a much bigger deal in the Scriptures are pretty much ignored by most of us.
I have not, for example, observed people getting all het up about people in the military taking the Lord's name in vain. Nor have I gotten concerned e-mails about people who fail to honor their parents teaching in our schools.
Why is that?
And of course, so many of the things Jesus actually did care enough to mention falling on the stony ground.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Unless they started trying to tell other people it isn't a sin.
What about it (in the case described) would be sinful?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Earendil18:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's perfectly possible to be gay and not have sex with someone of the same sex in a healthy manner. It may even be possible to be gay but be very happy in the kind of relationship OSC fantasized all gay people into, where they marry someone of the opposite gender and bear and raise kids with them. However, this involves honestly facing and dealing with the sexual attractions that you feel.
Thankfully, many people don't feel a need to conform to the social mores of another group. Especially when a large portion of science(the thing that also said "hey the earth isn't flat", and "we're not the center of the universe") says, "hey, we're shaped by our environment, and we're actually very complex sexually."
(CAUTION: Oversimplification ahead)
B:But G-d said! A:Where? B:A dubiously translated 2000+ year old book, from an earlier time in which many gods existed. Stories which helped equip people for living life! If it was weird, we feared it, and thus it was bad. A:Oh. How do you know it's true? B:Well Mommy and Daddy said so since I was five. I wanted to make them happy so I did my best.
Meanwhile, a fair percentage of teens commit suicide each year because they're different.
Laying aside the fact that choosing to accept science is in essence not rejecting certain social mores, what was the point of your oversimplification of Biblical belief? How are you advancing the discussion? It seems to me that being aware of the overly simple nature of your dialog makes you doubly guilty of wasting people's time.
I can appreciate that you have found much to admire in the progressive ideas of modern social science, I hope you will continue to find truth in that channel. I also hope that you will one day realize that there is also truth of great valuable within religion.
BlackBlade, you're right, that didn't really advance the discussion.
I remember posting a very voracious thread regarding missionaries et al, but your landmark on your missionary work helped me understand the view from the other side, and what it's like trying to share your religion with others.
I'm not very good at constructing arguments, but hopefully joining threads like these will help. You're right, how does that advance the discussion?
I do realize there are good principles and truths in religion. Religion runs throughout the entire human race. Many truths have been found throughout The Great Conversation.
I guess I'm trying to express what I see to be a case of missing the forest for the trees.
No hard feelings.
I can recognize that many opponents of homosexual acceptance simply hide behind the bible and refuse to poke their heads out. It's hard for many to realize that what was once accepted as eccentric at best and disgusting at worst is suddenly not so clear cut. Personally I am glad the conversation on gender and gender roles has become so complex, even if it does not ultimately change one's conclusion, it's always better to understand just what you believe in. Even my church while not changing it's stance on homosexuality has changed several important things regarding it's approach to that dilemma. I'd go into those things in detail except that I am literally going to be late for church even if I walk out the door right now.
It's an interesting dilemma whether to miss some of church in order to discuss theology and philosophy with a good person, or actually attend church for your own spiritual needs. I'm concluding that in this instance I need to attend church. I'll be back later. Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: What about it (in the case described) would be sinful?
You know how maried people can get themselves in trouble by spending too much time with a friend of the opposite sex because it crosses the line to an emotional affair? It's like that. They're entertaining the idea of a relationship and telling themselves that they won't go through with it.
If they can live that way without lustful thoughts ever coming up, I suppose it wouldn't be a sin. But then, why would they be holding hands and kissing?
I'm not a theologian or anything, but I'm pretty sure that deliberately putting yourself in a situation that makes you more likely to sin counts as a sin, too.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: No hard feelings.
I can recognize that many opponents of homosexual acceptance simply hide behind the bible and refuse to poke their heads out. It's hard for many to realize that what was once accepted as eccentric at best and disgusting at worst is suddenly not so clear cut. Personally I am glad the conversation on gender and gender roles has become so complex, even if it does not ultimately change one's conclusion, it's always better to understand just what you believe in. Even my church while not changing it's stance on homosexuality has changed several important things regarding it's approach to that dilemma. I'd go into those things in detail except that I am literally going to be late for church even if I walk out the door right now.
It's an interesting dilemma whether to miss some of church in order to discuss theology and philosophy with a good person, or actually attend church for your own spiritual needs. I'm concluding that in this instance I need to attend church. I'll be back later.
Come back soon Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not a theologian or anything, but I'm pretty sure that deliberately putting yourself in a situation that makes you more likely to sin counts as a sin, too.
That's like saying that eating cheesecake is a sin, since it's likely to make you want to eat too much cheesecake.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Why does anyone care what I think is a sin or what is not? My friends who live together before marriage (if they ever thought about it) would know that I considered their lifestyles a sin, but somehow it is never an issue. But my gay friends seem obsessed with proving to me why they aren't sinning. I have friends who think I live a sinful life and am going to hell, but it doesn't bother me. As a Christian, I think that the only person who is not a sinner is Jesus so it isn't like being a sinner sets you apart from the rest of the human population. I do think that there is a line of course. For example, I don't actually tell my friends- you doing X is evil (unless they ask).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So would it be evil -- in your eyes, or in the eyes of God -- for two men who (romantically) loved each other deeply to live together and care for each other without consummating a sexual relationship?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: That's like saying that eating cheesecake is a sin, since it's likely to make you want to eat too much cheesecake.
If eating cheesecake keeps you from doing God's work, then yes. I think Paul had it right when he talked about eating the sacrificial meat. Some level of sin is subjective. If you believe it's wrong, then you ought not to be doing it. Other bits got spelled out.
But again, my personal view is that focusing on sin misses the entire point. What is God telling you that He wants from your life? What purpose is He giving you to fill? That's the point. Everything else is just the stuff that gets in the way of that, IMO.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
So if Joe finds himself attracted to Jack you suggest he prays for guidance.
If that prayer does not "straighten" out Joe's feelings of attractions what should Joe do?
The problem is that Joe all to often finds himself feeling love for Jack, but all he gets from his church and from others at his church is the same advice--Quit Feeling That Way. or Pray until the feeling goes away.
Sometimes Joe blames himself. Guilt and pressure build up until dangerous and destructive results occur.
Sometimes Joe blames the church. God is love, but to be forced to deny love to find God just doesn't seem right. Hence the Church, or perhaps God is to blame.
That person leaves the Church, and sometimes they leave God. Of course to them, the Church, or God, left them already.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Why does anyone care what I think is a sin or what is not?
Because y'all tend to legislate against 'sin.'
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Thank goodness we don't live in a theocracy, so regardless of whether any particular religion finds something sinful, it doesn't mean the rest of us can't do it.
Posted by Human (Member # 2985) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: So if Joe finds himself attracted to Jack you suggest he prays for guidance.
If that prayer does not "straighten" out Joe's feelings of attractions what should Joe do?
The problem is that Joe all to often finds himself feeling love for Jack, but all he gets from his church and from others at his church is the same advice--Quit Feeling That Way. or Pray until the feeling goes away.
Sometimes Joe blames himself. Guilt and pressure build up until dangerous and destructive results occur.
Sometimes Joe blames the church. God is love, but to be forced to deny love to find God just doesn't seem right. Hence the Church, or perhaps God is to blame.
That person leaves the Church, and sometimes they leave God. Of course to them, the Church, or God, left them already.
This is the phenomenon I'm most against--the sanctioned repression of drives and desires that weren't meant to be that completely repressed, desires that 90% of the population are told is completely normal. I didn't even grow up in a religious household, but I'm still dealing with the mental crap from all the people around me told me that what I am is wrong, sinful, and should be repressed.
I tried to be "good", I tried not to like guys. But it doesn't work, that's the thing. If Larry Craig and Ted Haggard are testaments to anything, it's that those sexual and emotional drives find ways to leak out no matter what you do. Repress a core part of yourself long enough, and not only does what you want suppressed come out anyway, but it comes out in a twisted, negative form. So why encourage people to suppress it? Why not encourage healthy love in all its forms? It's got to be easier.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Please see Mr Squicky's post above. Just because that's the way it often is doesn't mean that's the way it has to be.
Yes, the best response involves some growth on the religious side. I'm ok with that. I'd rather see the discussion turn to how we can all do better to be supportive of others without it necessarily turning into why Christians are all evil bigots out to get anyone who isn't exactly like them. Sure, there're Christians like that, but there're all kinds of people like that. Including gay rights activists. (I've got some unpleasant memories of how these threads tend to go. That's why I stayed out of it until now.)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that if the expectation that if one prays enough they will simply stop being gay is a harmful one. This is instead a sacrifice and one of the hardest ones someone will have to make. I know a straight man who believes based on his circumstances that any sex would be a sin. He still feels desires and acknowledges that, but he also feels that by making this sacrifice, he will be closer to God and it will be worth the difficulties. He is also thinking that since he is celibate anyway, perhaps the priesthood is a good option for him, which would help support his committment to God.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because y'all tend to legislate against 'sin.'
Yeah, well, so does everybody. With differing definitions of course.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
scholarette: How many men who are repressing their sexual desires need to go into the priesthood and put in a position to turn their repression into something unhealthy, rather than just live their life in a normal, healthy way?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Why is going into the priesthood turning rpression into something unhealthy? Abusing people would be unhealthy, but devoting your life to God is an admirable thing.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Because y'all tend to legislate against 'sin.'
Yeah, well, so does everybody. With differing definitions of course.
I don't. It's not even a concept I use.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm far from convinced that repression as it's used here is guaranteed or even likely to turn into something unhealthy.
After all, we're from the start setting lots of conditions on this stuff. The idea being that repression of a good* thing is bad, while presumably repression of a bad** thing isn't. But that's pretty darn subjective, ain't it?
For example, a subjectively good thing: healthy sexual appetite. A common idea is that repressing this is going to be bad and lead to something unhealthy. I think that's too deeply personal and variable an issue to possibly be able to generalize accurately.
For another example, a subjectively bad thing: addiction to drugs of some sort. Some people have a real appetite for booze. Appetites which go far beyond simply enjoying the taste of a good scotch and getting mildly buzzed on the weekend, but for whom alcohol-a normally commonplace and to an extent even healthy (according to some stuff I've read) thing-is simply dangerous.
Repression of that urge is commonly thought of as good.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't. It's not even a concept I use.
Sure you do. Everyone has a concept of sin, granting that a religious motive is not necessary to think something is a sin. Unless you actually do believe that anyone can do whatever the heck they want anytime.
Or am I mistaken? Do you not think that violating someone's personal rights and freedoms is morally wrong?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Because y'all tend to legislate against 'sin.'
Yeah, well, so does everybody. With differing definitions of course.
I don't. It's not even a concept I use.
Sin isn't a concept I use in making political decisions either. I look at what is sin in deciding my actions and how I raise my child. Other then that, definitions of sin don't play much of a role (of course, how I live my life is a pretty big role).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It sounds like a switched-around version of Pascal's Wager applies here.
If God exists and really disapproves of same-sex couples, then repressing ones sexuality may be a good thing, although Jesus said that having the urges are the same as doing the deed, so maybe not.
If God doesn't exist, or if he doesn't really care so much about your sexual preferences, then repressing ones sexuality only causes one to live a self-imposed life of torment and frustration, and miss out on innumerable joyful and happy experiences of having a family and a normal life.
Well, seems pretty clear we should err on the side of telling other people to not ask, not tell, and repress their desires for happiness, a family, and so forth, and that we should legislate that to make sure our interpretation of the Bible is followed by everybody else Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, apparently some people believe that those who believe in sins will also try to use the power of government to legislate against all of those sins.
Which is pretty stupid, actually.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
There's a difference between believing something is morally wrong, and believing something is a sin. If you look up the word sin in any dictionary, you will see that there is a religious component to the term. While the terms "morally wrong", "evil", "wrong", a bad act", etc do not necessarily have any religious meaning to them. I attach no meaning to the concept of sin, because I don't believe in the existence of any God that could make some acts sinful.
That's why we have different words, Rakeesh - they all mean different things!
And scholarette, just because you don't legislate on the basis of sin, doesn't mean that most people don't. We've had discussions here on hatrack where many people have said they use their religiously-informed definitions of right and wrong (aka what's sinful and what isn't) when voting. And there's plenty of Congressmen who throw around the word sin, too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jhai,
quote:There's a difference between believing something is morally wrong, and believing something is a sin. If you look up the word sin in any dictionary, you will see that there is a religious component to the term. While the terms "morally wrong", "evil", "wrong", a bad act", etc do not necessarily have any religious meaning to them. I attach no meaning to the concept of sin, because I don't believe in the existence of any God that could make some acts sinful.
Actually if you look up the word in the dictionary, you'll see that very close to the top (second in fact) of the list of definitions includes strictly a moral wrong, not a religious wrong.
So no, there is not necessarily a religious component to the word 'sin'-this is precisely why I said Juxtapose was silly for suggesting (according to the definition used) that the concept of sin is not used.
Words do indeed mean different things! Even words we think we know already! That might be why I was careful to qualify my remark.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Wow, I didn't think I'd have to bother explaining this. Yes, if you look in any dictionary, if you go down far enough, you'll end up getting a water-down definition of a word. Just because a word can be used loosely, as you're doing, doesn't mean that the main definition changes. As the OED says, sin means
quote:An act which is regarded as a transgression of the divine law and an offence against God; a violation (esp. wilful or deliberate) of some religious or moral principle.
And if you go down far enough on the page, you can get a definition like
quote:A pity; a shame.
Does that mean that the word sin is a perfect synonym for shame? No, because the word sin will always have religious connotations deriving from its main religiously-valued use.
And, surprisingly, you're still wrong on your main point that everyone uses the word sin. I don't. I don't believe in the existence of the concept. I understand how others use it, but I think they're actually talking about imaginary things, just like when they talk about their God.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Actually, I would contend that sin is often tied very intimately with shame.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I agree that they're tied closely together - sinning seems to bring about feelings of shame more than just, say, making a mistake. But just because there's connections between the two in our mental states doesn't mean that we should use the words synonymously.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jhai,
quote:Wow, I didn't think I'd have to bother explaining this. Yes, if you look in any dictionary, if you go down far enough, you'll end up getting a water-down definition of a word. Just because a word can be used loosely, as you're doing, doesn't mean that the main definition changes. As the OED says, sin means
You know what, you're right. I had to dig real deep to find a definition that didn't require a religious component. It was that rarely-reached number that we don't commonly see outside of math problems, two.
quote:And, surprisingly, you're still wrong on your main point that everyone uses the word sin. I don't. I don't believe in the existence of the concept. I understand how others use it, but I think they're actually talking about imaginary things, just like when they talk about their God.
OK, how about I grant this: given that my original post was totally correct (in that sin does not necessarily involve religion, and that everyone wants to legislate to some extent against what they view as morally wrong), but that you don't actually use the word 'sin' yourself, I'll revise it: everyone uses the concept of 'sin', or else a concept that matches the synonym of the word.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't use the concept of sin (Edit: or a word that is synonymous with it), Rakeesh. Don't know a simpler way to put it.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In my personal definitions, I view sin and morality as separate. For example, I would view not attending church as a sinful act. However, I don't think that if you don't attend church, you are not moral. I am inclined to think of homosexual the same way (sin, but not immoral). Morals are right and wrong regardless of God, sins are things that go against God's law (which can immoral too- like beating up a gay guy because he is gay would be both immoral and a sin). I think moral reasoning in legislation is acceptable, but sin isn't (otherwise we would all be attending church every Sunday believe it or not).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Because y'all tend to legislate against 'sin.'
Yeah, well, so does everybody. With differing definitions of course.
Uh huh. and that's why they care; in the process of some people's zeal to translate religious mores into cultural mandates, you end up with discrimination and intolerance coming from the bible's pulpit interpretation du jour and going straight into our lawbooks. This nation already went through it for things like miscegenation, and today, it's gay rights.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that gay people today can't help but care what Christians interpret as a sinful lifestyle since it has such a profound impact on their rights and freedoms.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Jhai,
quote:I don't use the concept of sin (Edit: or a word that is synonymous with it), Rakeesh. Don't know a simpler way to put it.
You don't use the concept of moral precepts, or of certain actions being a transgression of those? Again, please bear in mind that I went out of my way to say that I wasn't necessarily talking about your definition of the word 'sin' which is not, no matter how much you insist otherwise, the only one.
Everyone tries to legislate against actions they view as trangressions against moral precepts. Not necessarily all actions, but that's not what I said.
------
Samprimary,
quote:Uh huh. and that's why they care; in the process of some people's zeal to translate religious mores into cultural mandates, you end up with discrimination and intolerance coming from the bible's pulpit interpretation du jour and going straight into our lawbooks. This nation already went through it for things like miscegenation, and today, it's gay rights.
Well, that's right. But you weren't talking about 'some people' or everyone, you were specifically criticizing a certain group of people. It's not that they want to legislate against sin that you find problematic*, it's that they want to legislate against sin that you don't think is sinful.
quote:In fact, I would go so far as to say that gay people today can't help but care what Christians interpret as a sinful lifestyle since it has such a profound impact on their rights and freedoms.
I didn't say they shouldn't care, I simply said that not all of 'them' like to do what you claim they do.
*Because as I just discussed with Jhai (which he disagrees with, to be fair), you too like certain laws against things which you think are sinful.
That's why most people think certain things should be legal. It's not because they're judicial scholars or lawyers or civil rights activists, it's because they think, "Hey, this thing is totally wrong! It should be illegal!"
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Re: religion and SSM, I can see Jews being against gay marriage. But Christians? One of Jesus' main points was that his death freed us from the need to slavishly follow the strict rules of Jewish law. IIRC, he thought it was a good idea to go ahead and get the ox out of the ditch on the Sabbath. It's an issue of following common sense, or at least attempting to, over the law, when the two seem to conflict. He didn't make any special comments regarding "Those gay fellows", either. I'm not saying let's celebrate being gay, but I hardly see how letting Lisa marry her SO is going to cause anyone any great harm. Also, I think the issue of "Is it a harmful thing or not" is suggested far more by the New Testament than the OT. The OT says "follow the law, or else", whereas the NT has a much more measured, reasoned approach to Jewish law. Given that...just because many of you are uncomfortable with gayness doesn't mean you have any standing, religious or otherwise, to be anti-SSM. In my view, quite the contrary.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't believe in legislating morality, and I find it tedious when people insist to me that I do.
I believe in legislating in order to maximize the rights that all people have, because that's the safest way to preserve my own rights. Thus I would legislate against things that infringe upon the rights of others, not because I give a damn about the rights of others, but because doing so protects my own.
That is fundamentally different from legislating against things that don't affect you and don't infringe on anybody's rights, because your religious code tells you that they are wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: scholarette: How many men who are repressing their sexual desires need to go into the priesthood and put in a position to turn their repression into something unhealthy, rather than just live their life in a normal, healthy way?
Indeed. This is acknowledged to be a contributing factor in the clerical sexual abuse crisis. Young men believing that they can repress or hide from what might be healthy normal sexual urges never learn to distinguish between the healthy and the perverse. As far as they are concerned, all sexual urges are sinful and wrong. Having their psychosexual development arrested fairly young, they seek out adolescents when their now muddled urges refuse to be repressed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Icarus,
quote:I don't believe in legislating morality, and I find it tedious when people insist to me that I do.
Would you still find it tedious if I pointed out that I'm not suggesting you, or Jhai, or Samprimary, or anyone else are about legislating all of their morality, but merely some of the most important parts of it-and not exclusively because it is their morality, either?
I mean, I've read many posts of your politics over the years and it would be a big surprise to hear that the only reason you believe in maximizing the rights of all people is simply because that's the most expedient way to protect your own rights.
Laws against theft and murder are great because they protect me from theft and murder, but I thought it was safe to say that that's not the only reason there are laws against them.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: The OT says "follow the law, or else", whereas the NT has a much more measured, reasoned approach to Jewish law.
On the contrary. It has a belittling and almost contemptuous approach.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Are you referring to Galatians?
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by steven: The OT says "follow the law, or else", whereas the NT has a much more measured, reasoned approach to Jewish law.
On the contrary. It has a belittling and almost contemptuous approach.
Nuh uhh!
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I don't. It's not even a concept I use.
Sure you do. Everyone has a concept of sin, granting that a religious motive is not necessary to think something is a sin. Unless you actually do believe that anyone can do whatever the heck they want anytime.
Where does moral relativism fall in there?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I don't believe in legislating morality, and I find it tedious when people insist to me that I do.
I believe in legislating in order to maximize the rights that all people have, because that's the safest way to preserve my own rights. Thus I would legislate against things that infringe upon the rights of others, not because I give a damn about the rights of others, but because doing so protects my own.
That is fundamentally different from legislating against things that don't affect you and don't infringe on anybody's rights, because your religious code tells you that they are wrong.
y'know, when I look up the dictionary definition of morals, it still looks like that even with your distinctions of what you will legislate, you're still looking to legislate that morality.
This isn't a 'gotcha' or nothing, I'm more wondering — isn't it just a different set of morals being legislated under your principles?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I don't. It's not even a concept I use.
Sure you do. Everyone has a concept of sin, granting that a religious motive is not necessary to think something is a sin. Unless you actually do believe that anyone can do whatever the heck they want anytime.
Or am I mistaken? Do you not think that violating someone's personal rights and freedoms is morally wrong?
No, I just think you've improperly divested the word of its religious connotations. The problem with legislating sin is that it is very likely to bypass important concepts like demonstrable harm, because of its faith-based nature.
The question isn't "should some things be illegal?" but rather "what should the basis for determining illegality be?"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I don't believe in legislating morality, and I find it tedious when people insist to me that I do.
I believe in legislating in order to maximize the rights that all people have, because that's the safest way to preserve my own rights. Thus I would legislate against things that infringe upon the rights of others, not because I give a damn about the rights of others, but because doing so protects my own.
That is fundamentally different from legislating against things that don't affect you and don't infringe on anybody's rights, because your religious code tells you that they are wrong.
y'know, when I look up the dictionary definition of morals, it still looks like that even with your distinctions of what you will legislate, you're still looking to legislate that morality.
This isn't a 'gotcha' or nothing, I'm more wondering — isn't it just a different set of morals being legislated under your principles?
I don't think so--unless you want to water down the definition of "morality" to the point where it doesn't mean much anymore. Legislating morality means legislating that people meet your definition of good. Legislating the protection of rights means you don't have to be good, you just have to keep from impinging on the rights of others. To me it's a clear difference. If you come along and say, "Well, protecting rights is a position rooted in a certain specific morality," I'd say you're just playing semantic games--unless you believe that I actually have no moral beliefs beyond the protection of rights.
I have things I believe are right and wrong, and I don't think you should be forced to adhere to those beliefs. That's what those of us who say you shouldn't legislate morality mean. It's a challenge to come up with a better reason than "because it's wrong." Specifically, to come up with a concrete reason.
Legislating morality means anything you believe is immoral can be legislated against. Not legislating morality means that your moral philosophy is not a strong enough basis for laws. One approach makes it make sense to legislate against drinking, prostitution, sodomy, lying, and marital infidelity. One does not. The difference is clear.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Rakeesh, my reason for outlawing theft and murder doesn't come down to "because they're wrong." Lots of things are wrong. Theft and murder have additional reasons for being criminalized.
In addition to protecting my own rights, protecting the rights of all people seems to be conducive to the development of civilization. We're all better off when all of our rights are protected. I'm better off if you can open a store in my neighborhood which serves my needs, and worse off if a high crime rate makes you feel that you cannot.
I have other reasons for thinking murder and robbery are wrong, but not really other reasons for wanting them to be outlawed. I want civilization to exist because we all benefit from it. The things that can be demonstrated to concretely destroy civilization--beyond that, the things that [i]self-evidently do--need to be prevented.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: I don't think so--unless you want to water down the definition of "morality" to the point where it doesn't mean much anymore. Legislating morality means legislating that people meet your definition of good. Legislating the protection of rights means you don't have to be good, you just have to keep from impinging on the rights of others. To me it's a clear difference. If you come along and say, "Well, protecting rights is a position rooted in a certain specific morality," I'd say you're just playing semantic games--unless you believe that I actually have no moral beliefs beyond the protection of rights.
I don't understand your last statement. Why is it a semantic game to say that "protecting rights is a position rooted in a certain specific morality"?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't think so--unless you want to water down the definition of "morality" to the point where it doesn't mean much anymore.
... I'm watering down the definition of "morality" to the point where it defines morality.
Your desire to protect rights is a specific form of personal morality.
Morals are by definition concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong. You would be forcing others to adhere to some of these moral beliefs with the implementation of your (or much of any) idea of what rights are to be mandated.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Threads,
Nowhere, because whether or not moral principles reflect any objective standard has nothing to do with whether or not you hold a given moral principle.
------
Juxtapose,
quote:No, I just think you've improperly divested the word of its religious connotations. The problem with legislating sin is that it is very likely to bypass important concepts like demonstrable harm, because of its faith-based nature.
It's not just me. Divesting it of religious connotations is the second thing the dictionary I used did, too.
Look, folks, I'm not saying, "Because I think it's wrong," should ever be the only reason we make something illegal. I'm saying that, "Because I think it's wrong," is often or even always a big motivator for us caring enough to make it illegal in the first place.
--------
Icarus,
quote:I have other reasons for thinking murder and robbery are wrong, but not really other reasons for wanting them to be outlawed. I want civilization to exist because we all benefit from it. The things that can be demonstrated to concretely destroy civilization--beyond that, the things that self-evidently do--need to be prevented.
I'm not talking about the reasoning we use from the armchair thinking in abstract legal and enlightened self-interest terms. I'm talking, when you [i]see a crime or hear about it...why do you want it to be illegal? Why do you call the cops? Is enlightened self-interest really the only answer, or doesn't your morality provide a big helping of the emotional oomph for those things?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: Are you referring to Galatians?
No. I'm talking about "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." I'm talking about Peter's little seafood vision in Acts. I'm talking about Paul's rant about how the existence of law made him a sinner (wahhh!) Can you just imagine some guy in the slammer saying, "It's not my fault! If they hadn't made a law against bank robbery, I wouldn't be here."
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"On the contrary. It has a belittling and almost contemptuous approach."
It's hard to take someone entirely seriously when they tell you you can't have some cheese with your meat. Some of the OT laws make sense, and some are hugely inexplicable, and I bet you every dollar I ever make, inherit, am given, or find that they will always be just that, inexplicable. I really doubt anybody 1000 years from now will still be following some of those rules. Really, seriously. How would you even follow the Sabbath rules if you're out in a space vessel between galaxies?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
They're not supposed to be explicable. There is an entire category of mitzvos called chukim (sing. chok) which are by definition inexplicable.
As for Shabbos among the stars, I doubt it's any more difficult that Shabbos in the Arctic Circle. And that's quite doable.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: "On the contrary. It has a belittling and almost contemptuous approach."
It's hard to take someone entirely seriously when they tell you you can't have some cheese with your meat.
I'll mention to God that you don't approve.
quote:Originally posted by steven: Some of the OT laws make sense, and some are hugely inexplicable, and I bet you every dollar I ever make, inherit, am given, or find that they will always be just that, inexplicable.
How... nice for you. Getting back, I mean, to "belittling and almost contemptuous". Scratch the "almost", though.
quote:Originally posted by steven: I really doubt anybody 1000 years from now will still be following some of those rules. Really, seriously. How would you even follow the Sabbath rules if you're out in a space vessel between galaxies?
I'd answer that if you were asking sincerely, and not as a rhetorical attack.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
SenojRetep said:
quote:I believe there is value in the struggle to overcome natural desires that are sinful. I imagine many people see this as psychologically unhealthy. I disagree. I think overcoming (or at least trying to overcome) natural impulses is an integral part of growing up, spiritually.
I know I'm late responding, but I'm going to do it anyway.
This is really, really easy for someone who isn't burdened with a particular brand of "sinful" impulses to say, with regard to those who are. Such a person can probably conclude that he just happens to be more spiritually mature than the person whose sexuality is wired sinfully (or, if you prefer, in a way that predisposes the person to sin).
One can draw comparisons to sinful impulses they DO have, but I'd bet that overwhelmingly those are trivial compared to sexuality*, or indulging those impulses would demonstrably infringe on the rights of others.
*Comparing the huge sacrifice of never expressing one's sexuality to quitting cigarettes is demeaning and foolish. There are numerous motivations and benefits for not smoking that have nothing to do with believing it is a sin, for one thing. There IS no comparison between sexual expression and another form of "sin".
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by steven: "On the contrary. It has a belittling and almost contemptuous approach."
It's hard to take someone entirely seriously when they tell you you can't have some cheese with your meat.
I'll mention to God that you don't approve.
Are you taking requests? Because I have a list here, somewhere...
Posted by Tammy (Member # 4119) on :
Geez Steven - Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:It's hard to take someone entirely seriously when they tell you you can't have some cheese with your meat. Some of the OT laws make sense, and some are hugely inexplicable, and I bet you every dollar I ever make, inherit, am given, or find that they will always be just that, inexplicable. I really doubt anybody 1000 years from now will still be following some of those rules. Really, seriously. How would you even follow the Sabbath rules if you're out in a space vessel between galaxies?
If you're not Jewish it's not your problem, is it? But I guess that's really the point. The law shouldn't be based on one set of religious rules, because it doesn't make sense to people that don't practice that religion. It seems to me that this is precisely what the 1st amendment is about. The problem is when a religious standard is so universally accepted and it's been institutionalized so long that people don't see it as being based on religion. That's what God made atheists for.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: That's what God made atheists for.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"How... nice for you. Getting back, I mean, to "belittling and almost contemptuous". Scratch the "almost", though."
So now I'm "belittling and contemptuous" too, huh? I'm starting to wonder who you wouldn't label this way, because my beliefs cannot be described as Christian. I'm not anti-Jewish, I'm merely pointing out that it doesn't make sense to slavishly follow laws that don't make sense to anyone, outside of "God said to follow it". I think you'd agree, too, Lisa, if you thought about it, because I doubt you slavishly follow every single law in the OT. I'm not singling Orthodox Jews out in a general sense. I think extreme orthodoxy in any belief system is untenable in the long term. It may hurt to hear that nobody will be following some obscure tenet of your belief system in a thousand years...but it's true, and I have a right to say it, and no reasonable person would disagree with either of those facts.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:It may hurt to hear that nobody will be following some obscure tenet of your belief system in a thousand years...but it's true, and I have a right to say it, and no reasonable person would disagree with either of those facts.
Well...it's true that you have a right to say so.
It's not true that the no-milk-with-your-meat rule is obscure. It's also not true that the Shabbos rule is obscure.
It's also can't be demonstrated or known definitively what a religion is going to look like in 1000 years.
It IS true I'm a reasonable person. And I disagree with most of the "facts" as you've presented them.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: It's not true that the no-milk-with-your-meat rule is obscure. It's also not true that the Shabbos rule is obscure.
This depends entirely on your definition of 'obscure'. If it's something that you know, obviously you won't view it as obscure. But if your average person has no knowledge of it, it could probably be called obscure.
I, for one, had no idea about the 'no meat w/ dairy' rule, and I am by no means ignorant on the concept of religious dietary rules.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, that is one of the less obscure of the dietary laws.
I find that it makes sense to me if I think of it as worship. Some cultures do elaborate dances (for example) to honor their gods. Each step must be correct for the ritual. I think of the elaborate laws the same way. As a form of worship.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"I think of the elaborate laws the same way. As a form of worship."
That's a little dangerous, don't you think? Not that we don't all participate in slightly dangerous activities from time to time. Note, though, that I'm not really an atheist, nor do my beliefs fit any system that I'm aware of. I don't think that atheism-as-most-current-atheists-believe-it will survive intact 1000 years from now. I think that there is a spirit/soul aspect to the universe, I just am not sure it's as definable/defined as many believe. I also believe that science will show to the satisfaction of all that there is indeed a spirit/soul aspect to the Universe, and that it can/does interact with physical reality in not-always-100%-predictable ways. In that sense, I may be closer to some Christians in my beliefs than to the average atheist. I'm really not busting on Jews/Mormons/etc., I'm noting that, contrary to what Catholics used to believe, the Earth does indeed revolve around the sun.
My definition of "obscure Jewish laws" is "I didn't know about it until I starting reading exchanges between Orthodox Jews in the Hatrackosphere". I knew about Sabbath restrictions, I was merely pointing out the irrelevance of such rules to a space-going species. The "cheese and meat" bit, I did not. That was learned either here or on Sake or galactic cactus, I don't recall which. I'd say I was better-educated about Jewish law than the average human and/or American. I was raised in a fairly conservative YEC Baptist church, and they know a surprisingly large amount about the OT laws.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It can't be all that obscure. I have known about it since I was in elementary school. And I was not raised to be particularly religious.
It might be dangerous if Jews expected everyone else to abide by their rules. But they don't. Nor do they even encourage it. I could wish Baptists were as considerate.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I knew about that, and kosher certification and the symbols that organizations that do the certification put on food, and that kosher meat has not been "blessed by a priest", etc. And so did most of the people I grew up with, and it wasn't until I went to HS that I went to school with anyone who kept kosher in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
You probably knew some Jews growing up, Kate. OTOH, I didn't.
As far as Baptists go, you can insult the Baptists all you want. I'd love to get back even a small chunk of the tens of thousands of dollars my parents have given to their church over the years. It'd make a nice nest egg for lean years, not that I think I'll actually get it back.
In fact, the Jews DO want non-Jews to follow some of their laws. I eat more pork and shellfish because of it.
Just kidding. I already loved pork and shellfish. Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I just don't get the gay marriage thing. I am a rather conservative Christian...but I don't care if two gay people get married.
I don't think it is allowed under my religion, but that does not mean that it should not be allowed by my government. I would stop going to a church if the minister started preaching in favor of gay marriage (as I would if he preached in favor of premarital sex...something else that is against my religion, but should not be against the law).
I understand the desire the ban abortion or the death penalty. I see both of those as taking a life, and I oppose both. However, no one is hurt by a gay marriage...so I just don't understand why it is a governmental issue.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: In fact, the Jews DO want non-Jews to follow some of their laws. I eat more pork and shellfish because of it.
The pork and shellfish thing is for Jews only. Bon appetit.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: And so did most of the people I grew up with, and it wasn't until I went to HS that I went to school with anyone who kept kosher in any way, shape, or form.
Hey, did you know that Magic Carpet closed?
As for the notion that Judaism is bound to disappear, I have two words for you: Look magazine.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Gov. David Patterson of New York has told state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states and countries where they are legal, his spokeswoman said Wednesday
The governor's legal counsel told state agencies in a May 14 memo to revise policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in California and Massachusetts as well as Canada and other countries that allow gays and lesbians to marry, said Erin Duggan, the governor's spokeswoman.
The memo informed state agencies that failing to recognize gay marriages would violate the New York's human rights law, Duggan said.
The directive follows a February ruling from a New York state appeals court. That decision says that legal same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition in New York.
....
The governor's legal counsel sent the memo one day before the California Supreme Court struck down a ban on gay marriage in that state. Court officials in California counties may begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 17, state officials said Wednesday.
I wonder why this is only now hitting the front page of CNN, but I guess the memo was just released recently. California, New York and Massachusetts make up almost 19% of the country's population. So almost a fifth of the population now, really, affords equal marriage rights to hetero and homosexual couples alike. That's some pretty decent progress in 2008. That doesn't include the states that afford some other form of civil union and the various rights that go with it.
Yet I wonder if Patterson's directive will really stay the law of the land. I have to expect that there will be legal challenges, but the court ruled that the state has to recognize SSMs from other states, which one would think is a great legal foot in the door to arguing that they should therefore be legally performed in NY as well. I guess I'll wait until a challenge is overruled and his directive upheld before I really cheer, but I think it's good news.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
steven, here is a bit of information that you need for your life:
The fact that you don't know something does not make it "obsure".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Then again, I wonder what proportion of the world population really would know about the two traditions.
According to adherents.com, only roughly 0.22% of the world population is Jewish. It is obviously much harder to determine the fraction of the rest that would know about the dietary laws (or even the number of people of non-adherent Jews), but I am reasonably certain that only a tiny fraction in China would know about it, maybe a slightly higher fraction in India.
But if we're generous, we could say maybe twice as many non-Jews globally know about the tradition as the number of total Jews, which would be 42 million people.
This is a respectable amount, larger than say the population of Canada. Then again, it is only 1.1% of the world population, as a comparison Spiderman grossed $821 million at the box office, which at $10 a ticket would be roughly 82 million people. This means that potentially, more than twice as many people know about Spiderman's origin story than these religious laws.
So I'm not entirely sure that the term 'obscure' is completely out of the ballpark and in a perverse way, you could take pride in knowing such an exclusive piece of knowledge.
(This is not a comment on the goodness or not of the traditions involved, merely some extremely rough musing on the statistics involved)
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Hmmm, I think your numbers are a bit off, Mucus. I agree that few people would know about the Jewish laws in India or China, but I'd bet at least 1% or 2% do - the most educated & worldly bunch. That's about 22 million right there. Then ignoring Africa & South America (I have no idea how to guesstimate there), I bet at least 30% of Europe, and maybe a slightly smaller portion of the other Western countries know about Jewish dietary laws. The Germans, for instance, learn an awful lot about Jewish traditions.
I suspect that the the number is larger than Spiderman movie watchers, altho perhaps not by a lot.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do think there is a difference between knowing that eating kosher exists and knowing what, exactly, that entails.
As much as it pains me to agree with any part of anything steven says, knowing that kosher includes no cheeseburgers is a little obscure.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Until I was about 15, I had knowingly met only one Jew in my entire life, and I can't remember a time when I didn't know about milk and meat in kosher.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's a little bit obscure because it's detailed - no pork is easy to convey without effort, but the milk and meat thing isn't as clear cut. It doesn't mean don't eat cheese or don't eat meat, it means don't eat them at the same time, and if you eat one, you have to wait, but how long you have to wait depends on which one you ate first.
Without a personal acquaintance or some strong reason to learn it, I can easily see how someone never came across that particular rule.
It's like the Word of Wisdom. Many, many people know that Mormons don't drink alcohol. Slightly fewer know about the no coffee thing. An even smaller subset know that it is no coffee or tea but is not a specific prohibition against caffeine.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Until I was about 15, I had knowingly met only one Jew in my entire life, and I can't remember a time when I didn't know about milk and meat in kosher.
And I have known and been friends with many Jews in my life, and I just learned about milk and meat two days ago.
I don't think any of our personal anecdotes mean anything about the ultimate obscurity of that particular dietary rule.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've known about the milk and meat thing for as long as I can remember.
I am curious about where it came from. If I remember correctly, the prohibition in the Bible is against boiling a goat in its mother's milk, which was, as I understand it, a significant part of a pagan festival. Is there something else written that I missed or is there oral reasoning for this?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sorry, I kinda messed things up with my terminology. When I started off referring to "two traditions", I was referring specifically to the term Shabbos and the cheese and milk thing.
This was what my statistics were based on. If we based them on dietary laws in general, I have no doubt that the proportion would be much much higher if only due to the number of Muslims that know halal is somewhat compatible(?) with kosher.
But this particular term and this particular rule? I don't think I would be particularly far off.
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I agree that few people would know about the Jewish laws in India or China, but I'd bet at least 1% or 2% do - the most educated & worldly bunch.
Perhaps in India, but I doubt it in China. Extremely far from scientific, but I present the 'Sexy Beijing' video for Christmas (and Hanukkah) http://www.sexybeijing.tv/new/video.asp?id=11
Given the number of people that have no clue about Hanukkah, even in extremely affluent Beijing Wangfujiang area, I don't think knowledge of these two things would be even near 1% when you look at the country as a whole.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
A) You know that the California Supreme Court ruled based on the CA state constitution, not the US constitution?
B) What do you say about the gov. of CA vetoing several attempts of the legislature to pass a law extending marriage to same-sex couples in prior years?
BTW, does this mean that we should decry justices from overturning Roe v. Wade, since that is the current law, and to do so is unfair judicial review?
-Bok
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Edit: Aww, the funny post got deleted!
--Enigmatic
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Nice, stealth delete...
-Bok
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Brother, I disagree with you hole heartedly.
I have often heard that Judicial Review equates an Aristocracy of Judges, that make and shape our laws. Judicial Review can not and does not allow a 9 person panel of justices to rule us.
Judicial Review guarantees that we are a country of LAWS. It is the Law that they uphold, and the law that overturned the Gay marriage ban.
The Law in our country is a multi-tiered system. Constitutional Laws are at the top, then legislative laws. What Judicial Review does is guarantees that legislative law does not over power constitutional law.
So when a state legislator passes a law, and when a member of society believes that law is unconstitutional, and when a member of that society believes that they are harmed by that law, only then can they take it up to the Supreme Court for review.
And the Supreme Court can not make its judgments based on what it believes is right or wrong, what its politics are, or what it wishes to occur. It can only make its judgments based upon the law.
Even then, the founding fathers set up a wonderful balance of powers. Even if we get a group of nutters in the Supreme Court who try and turn this into a Attorney Dictatorship, they have no power. There is no Judicial Police. There is no Judicial Funding Mechanism. If they get so extreme as to be a danger, the legislature can cut their funds and the executive can ignore them.
As an example, one of the darkest times in US history:
Gold was discovered in the Georgia lands of the Cherokee Nation. Other parts of the land was rich in farm land, or just rich. President Andrew Jackson renounced all signed treaties that were made and ratified by congress that dealt with these people, and confiscated all their property.
The Cherokee people took this to court. It went to the Supreme Court, which stated clearly and forcibly that such confiscation was illegal, that all the treaties had the force of law, and that such behavior by the Executive Branch must stop.
Here was once where Judicial Review was at its best. Here the rights of the minority were defended by the Law. Here the idea that a newly elected congress would fix things if those hurt by the bad law just waited would not work, since those who were hurt could not vote, were forced out of the area, and mostly died.
Judicial Review was needed here to stave off a tragedy of American Ethnic Cleansing.
And despite the most powerful voice of this "Gang of 9", it was totally ineffective.
The executive branch, the President, had the troops to force the "Trail of Tears", no matter how illegal the Supreme Court said it was.
Now you can call me a "Traitor to the people who created our Constitution, and by whose consent we continue to enjoy the bounteous fruits of our Great Nation." I will die to defend your right to do so.
I hope you would do the same for me as I say, "destroying or denouncing Judicial Review is a short sighted argument usually employed as a sour grape whine by those who want to distract from real issues of constitutionally guaranteed protections."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I am curious about where it came from. If I remember correctly, the prohibition in the Bible is against boiling a goat in its mother's milk, which was, as I understand it, a significant part of a pagan festival. Is there something else written that I missed or is there oral reasoning for this?
Whether or not it was used in pagan worship is, AFAIK, completely irrelevant. The prohibition is repeated three times, so that implies that a simple reading is insufficient and there are three separate prohibitions.
Roght, but the prohibition was for a very specific practice: boiling a goat in the milk of its mother. I don't see this as a situation that is going to come up all that often, although I guess if you have goat boiled in milk and have only a small herd of goats, it's more likely. However, it was sufficiently odd that I looked into where it came from, which led me to sources that said that it was specific practice that made up a prominent part of a common pagan festival.
But, in kashrut, this is transformed from the action of actually cooking a specific animal in the milk of the individual animal's mother, into a global prohibition of eating any dairy product with any meat product or even, in the strict interpretation, using the same utensils to prepare them.
It's really not a big deal, but I was always confused by that and I figured people here could tell me where it came from.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But, in kashrut, this is transformed from the action of actually cooking a specific animal in the milk of the individual animal's mother, into a global prohibition of eating any dairy product with any meat product or even, in the strict interpretation, using the same utensils to prepare them.
You are forgetting that in traditional Judaism, the Written Law is never understood without the Oral Law. Think of the Written Law as lecture notes from a class -- reminders of the full story, not a transcription of every detail. Therefore it is extremely common that a law that appears to be highly specific in the Written is actually shorthand, as it were, for a more global law. (Not always, of course. But often.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Roght, but the prohibition was for a very specific practice: boiling a goat in the milk of its mother.
Nope. That's how Christians and other non-Jews read it, but it's not what the prohibition was for us. The written words of the Pentateuch are not, and never were, the primary corpus of Jewish law. On the contrary, the original law is in the part of the Torah that was transmitted orally. The text of the Pentateuch has many purposes, but the threefold repetition of that verse was intended to remind us of what the law actually is. The law is not derived from those verses.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But, in kashrut, this is transformed from the action of actually cooking a specific animal in the milk of the individual animal's mother, into a global prohibition of eating any dairy product with any meat product or even, in the strict interpretation, using the smae utensils to prepare them.
It's really not a big deal, but I was always confused by that and I figured people here could tell me where it came from.
All I can say is that God gave us a bunch of commandments. Among these were three prohibitions.
Don't cook beheima milk with beheima meat.
Don't eat a cooked combination of beheima milk and beheima meat.
Don't derive any benefit whatsoever from a cooked combination of beheima milk and beheima meat.
The threefold repetition of that verse is a reminder that (a) we're talking only about the meat and milk of a beheima (a goat is a beheima, but chickens and deer and fish are not), and that we're talking about cooking them together.
(Edit: and that there are three laws.)
The rabbis extended the law, certainly. They added in fowl and chaya animals (a deer is a chaya) along with beheima animals, and they forbade eating the combination even if it isn't cooked together.
The reason for the utensils is simply that utensils are porous, and they absorb some of a substance that's cooked or soaked in them. Using the same utensils for both would theoretically be possible, so long as you're either dealing with utterly non-porous materials, or take steps to remove any possible absorbed substance between uses, or both. And that's not practical, so we just use separate utensils.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Roght, but the prohibition was for a very specific practice: boiling a goat in the milk of its mother. I don't see this as a situation that is going to come up all that often
It's going to come up at our place in about three months. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lisa, are you sure the chaya meat/beheimah milk (or v.v.) is rabbinic?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Roght, but the prohibition was for a very specific practice: boiling a goat in the milk of its mother. I don't see this as a situation that is going to come up all that often
It's going to come up at our place in about three months.
Are you planning on trying that cooking method, or just noting that you theoretically could?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm 99.99% sure that chaya was added to the prohibition at the same time as fowl. Midivrei soferim. Which is sort of stronger than standard rabbinic, but still not d'Orayta. In other words, even chaya meat/chaya beheima is d'rabbanan.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Are you planning on trying that cooking method, or just noting that you theoretically could?
I don't have any specific plans, but it will almost certainly happen at one point or another, since all of our milk comes from the mothers of the kids we'll be eating in three months.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I meant the boiling in milk thing specifically. It's not a way I've ever prepared meat.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I meant the boiling in milk thing specifically. It's not a way I've ever prepared meat.
I have a curry recipe that calls for boiling milk with curry, onions and pre-browned chicken at one point.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Well then definitely don't use chicken milk. Just in case.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
I had no idea Mormons were allowed caffeine in any form. That does explain why my fairly devout Mormon buddy who was in my college percussion department seemed to be about 1 step away from flat-out mainlining Dr. Pepper. I think he worshipped Dr. Pepper about as much as anyone can without having an actual shrine to it in his bedroom. He used to go into long diatribes about how Texas Dr. Pepper uses cane sugar instead of corn syrup, and it tastes so much better. He wasn't planning to go on a mission, but I think he might actually have been more open to being a Dr. Pepper missionary than an LDS missionary.
Chicken milk: Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Moose: shh! Chicken Milk is the secret ingredient!
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Moose: shh! Chicken Milk is the secret ingredient!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I know what pigeon milk is. What on earth is chicken milk?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
rivka: What do you think comes out of boneless breasts?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We need a rimshot graemlin.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: rivka: What do you think comes out of boneless breasts?
Bones. How else did they get to be boneless?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I'm 99.99% sure that chaya was added to the prohibition at the same time as fowl. Midivrei soferim. Which is sort of stronger than standard rabbinic, but still not d'Orayta. In other words, even chaya meat/chaya beheima is d'rabbanan.
Out of curiosity, could you translate the Hebrew?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
All terms are approximate.
chaya = wild animal beheima = domesticated animal mideivrei soferim = doesn't really translate, but literally: from the words of the scribes d'orayta/d'oraysa = biblical law d'rabbanan = rabbinic law
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Thank you. And what is the difference between the levels of prohibition?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In terms of most day-to-day practice, nothing. In emergencies or other special cases, there are some differences.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We're very careful to distinguish between what was actually commanded at Sinai, and what was added by the rabbis. The reason for this is that there is a very serious prohibition against adding something to the Torah (or taking something away from it). We're allowed to have additional rules, but they must never be confused with the rules God gave us.
The biggest day-to-day difference would probably be the issue of what to do if there's a doubt. For example, there's an obligation from the Torah to recite a prayer called Shema Yisrael every day, twice a day (for men). If a man isn't sure whether he said it or not, he should go ahead and do so, because in the case of a doubt about a commandment from Sinai, we tend towards the strict. But if it was a rabbinic requirement, like the requirement to say a blessing before eating, then it's different. If I'm eating something, and it occurs to me that I don't remember if I said the blessing or not beforehand, I assume that I did, because in the case of rabbinic requirements, we tend towards the lenient.
In terms of levels, the real levels are the various levels of Torah prohibitions, which are sorted by the punishment specified for them in the Torah. There are things that have a punishment of death, which are considered extremely serious prohibitions. And there are those which are simply "thou shalt not"s, which are considered less severe (though equally binding). All rabbinic laws fall into the category of simple "thou shalt not"s, because they derive their authority from the Torah's commandment not to turn away from the instructions of the Sages.
I apologize for using the jargon before. I wasn't sure anyone was really interested, and I was just answering rivka's question.
Oh, one other thing. Midivrei Soferim are laws that are technically rabbinic (insofar as they are not from Sinai), but as I understand it, they were created by very, very early Sages, like Ezra early, which makes them very major league relative to other rabbinic laws. Again, like Rivka said, there's not a lot of practical difference anyway, except in exceptional cases.
[ June 01, 2008, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Totally Anonymous (Member # 2346) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I wasn't sure anyone was really interesting
QFT?
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
Totally Anonymous, was that meant to be rude or am I misinterpreting you?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'll just assume that it had something to do with my typo of "interesting" instead of "interested".
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin.... I am kind of annoyed by the attitudes of and toward sexual lusts in general; it is an indicator of our flawed culture that many of us treat sex as a happiness generator rather than a family creator.... If I accepted JK Rowling's definition of homosexuality, I'd be gay! I "fell in love" with a Swedish transfer student in seventh grade...
In all seriousness, have you considered the possibility that you might be gay? Your post here, for a lot of reasons, really triggers my gaydar.
But that's exactly my point: cultural gaydar picks up white noise as some abnormal sexual orientation or another. It can take the form of a bigot calling someone he doesn't like gay, or a gay-rights propagandist trying to recruit to his cause.
So for a lot of reasons, your response is somewhat self-destructive. It reestablishes the myth that homosexuals are late bloomers that misinterpret their feelings, it disproves the claim that a homosexual man is not capable of having a good relationship with a woman, and it proves how weak sexual hormones are compared to the human will.
I didn't tell you my life's story in that post. Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me. It took me a while to figure out the nature of my relationship with that student in seventh grade, but there are several good reasons that it very much resembles the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship, but is not homosexual. If you really want me to rattle them off, I could, but it might take a while for me to write. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Hee hee hee. I don't think I'm gay, hmm am I?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
3P0, I'd previously refrained from posting on this, but it feels to me as though your responding to Tom's comment legitimates it as a topic for discussion.
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer:So for a lot of reasons, your response.... disproves the claim that a homosexual man is not capable of having a good relationship with a woman, and it proves how weak sexual hormones are compared to the human will.
How does Tom's post do these things? I don't see that in it at all.
quote:Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me.
Why is that?
quote:It took me a while to figure out the nature of my relationship with that student in seventh grade, but there are several good reasons that it very much resembles the Dumbledore-Grindelwald relationship, but is not homosexual.
Tom can correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that what you said about the guy you had a crush on in 7th grade was the element of your post that most strongly pinged his gaydar.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Noemon's right. That's not the part that said "he could be gay" to me at all.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: I believe that (sorry!) sexuality for any purpose other than in the interest of continuing this process of life is harmful to the strength of the relationship with the spouse and the child, and therefore sin (not inherently a religious term).
So, no sexual congress for post-menopausal married couples? Or couples where the woman has had a hysterectomy? Or where one partner or the other has been found to be infertile, for one reason or another?
...If that's what you're saying, frankly, I think that's dead wrong.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"Noemon's right. That's not the part that said "he could be gay" to me at all."
It pinged my gaydar too.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
[/random Seinfeld reference]
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon: it disproves the claim that a homosexual man is not capable of having a good relationship with a woman,
Just about everyone is capable of having a "good" relationship with just about anyone else.
But gay men aren't capable of having an honest romantic relationship with women, because that would require a sexual attraction that they just don't hold for any woman.
quote:and it proves how weak sexual hormones are compared to the human will.
That's awfully easy for those people whose sexual hormones don't impel them to do things that some parts of soceity vehenemantly oppose to say.
You live 15 years hiding the fact that you love the person you love, and then you can preach about how easy it is to deny your feelings because someone else tells you to for no good reason.
quote:Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me.
Don't sell yourself short. If I may, as a member of the "marriage is for people who are in honest romantic relationships" community, I would confiscate your membership card to that community too, had you ever been a member. Because you seem to prefer the "people should marry people they don't really love" community instead.
Not to sound snobbish, but that's a community I'd never marry into. It's just common sense.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2:
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon: it disproves the claim that a homosexual man is not capable of having a good relationship with a woman,
Just about everyone is capable of having a "good" relationship with just about anyone else.
But gay men aren't capable of having an honest romantic relationship with women, because that would require a sexual attraction that they just don't hold for any woman.
quote:and it proves how weak sexual hormones are compared to the human will.
That's awfully easy for those people whose sexual hormones don't impel them to do things that some parts of soceity vehenemantly oppose to say.
You live 15 years hiding the fact that you love the person you love, and then you can preach about how easy it is to deny your feelings because someone else tells you to for no good reason.
quote:Even if I really am gay, the "gay and proud" community would be very swift to disown me.
Don't sell yourself short. If I may, as a member of the "marriage is for people who are in honest romantic relationships" community, I would confiscate your membership card to that community too, had you ever been a member. Because you seem to prefer the "people should marry people they don't really love" community instead.
Not to sound snobbish, but that's a community I'd never marry into. It's just common sense.
To address your first point, that proves I'm not gay. Because I actually DO have a sexual tug toward my girlfriend. I just fight it to keep my brain at a relative level of sanity so that I can really show myself to her, instead of the clouded, stupid monster that wants nothing but to indulge in sexual fantasies.
To address your response to the "sexual hormones effect on human will" clause, I'll just say that I believe that logic has precedence over feelings. Having known at an early age how sexual immorality can destroy families, damage lives, and drive otherwise sane men to do drunken, outrageous things, I approach anything sexual with extreme caution. So I have been "hiding" ever since prepuberty, but I haven't been holding my morals for no good reason.
To address your last paragraph, I will fervently deny that I am a card-carrying member of the "people should marry people they don't really love" community. I do think that our definitions of "really love" are divergent at this point, however. I'm somewhat reluctant to identify with "marriage is for people who are in honest romantic relationships", but that may just be because our definitions of romance are divergent as well.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: To address your first point, that proves I'm not gay. Because I actually DO have a sexual tug toward my girlfriend.
The claim was unfounded and silly. You would do best to ignore it. People will suspect they have touched a nerve.
quote:I just fight it to keep my brain at a relative level of sanity so that I can really show myself to her, instead of the clouded, stupid monster that wants nothing but to indulge in sexual fantasies.
TMI. The more you talk about your personal life, the more other people will comment on your personal life. Is this really what you want?
quote:To address your response to the "sexual hormones effect on human will" clause, I'll just say that I believe that logic has precedence over feelings.
Right. And it was logic that led you to broadcast the strength of your sexual feelings on a message board, to be read by dozens of strangers.
Way to hold your feelings in check there. You are asking millions of people to deny themselves those feelings forever, and you can't even keep those feelings from spilling on to a message board.
quote: Having known at an early age how sexual immorality can destroy families
Well, that’s the sticking point. You are wired such that the kind of sexual activity you were taught to call "moral" is the kind you are interested in. Other people are wired differently, so though their feelings are little different from yours: they care about and love their partners just like you do, you have labeled their actions “immoral”. It's like telling lactose-intolerant people that its "immoral" not to have milk and cheese with every meal.
quote:To address your last paragraph, I will fervently deny that I am a card-carrying member of the "people should marry people they don't really love" community.
So whom do you think that a gay man should marry? There are millions of them out there, and your comment about them having "good" relationships with women made me think that you were suggesting that they do that.
But if I was wrong, and you think that gay men simply shouldn't marry anyone, then I was wrong.
quote: I'm somewhat reluctant to identify with "marriage is for people who are in honest romantic relationships, but that may just be because our definitions of romance are divergent as well."
So you would marry a woman knowing that she did not honestly love you romantically, according what whatever your definition of “romantic” is?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Thanks, Lisa and rivka.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: To address your response to the "sexual hormones effect on human will" clause, I'll just say that I believe that logic has precedence over feelings. Having known at an early age how sexual immorality can destroy families, damage lives, and drive otherwise sane men to do drunken, outrageous things, I approach anything sexual with extreme caution. So I have been "hiding" ever since prepuberty, but I haven't been holding my morals for no good reason.
This paragraph sounds more like an example of misleading vividness than an example of logic taking precedence over feelings. I'm sorry that you seem to have experience with one extreme but retreating into a shell over the whole issue isn't rational.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that you can love someone and have a good marriage with less sexual attraction. Of course, this is affected by my memory of how I felt at 9 months pregnant and the first few months after having the baby. I also think that sexuality is not binary and shouldn't be presented that way. The Kinsey scale makes a lot more sense to me.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: This paragraph sounds more like an example of misleading vividness than an example of logic taking precedence over feelings.
I think that's a mischaracterization. He hasn't indicated that the sort of violence and trauma he describes is particularly likely; just that, for him, its so undesirable that he avoids even the unlikely event. It's a statement of utility, not probability. As such, one might challenge his utilities (relative costs of various courses of action), but probably not his logic.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I also think that sexuality is not binary and shouldn't be presented that way. The Kinsey scale makes a lot more sense to me.
I also think that the Kinsey scale should be used with at least two separate issues: physical attraction and emotional/bonding attraction. I know people who simply can't feel any emotional attraction with men, but are attracted to them physically. And vice versa.
It's a lot more complicated than most people assume.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
As a somewhat side note; I initiated a survey of sexual self-identification which can be found here -
Note, it is actually three independant surveys, so once you complete one section, you have to Page Back to complete the next.
Sadly, some of the accumulated statistics were lost by Homestead.com, but an interesting bit of information appear in the survey.
Straight boys will allow themselves a lot more gay feeling and tendencies and still call themselves straight than gay boys.
It's been a while since I looked at the information closely, but I think straight boys will allow themselves to have 20% gay tendencies and still call themselves straight. Gay boys on the other hand will only allow themselves 10% straight tendencies before they stop calling themselves gay.
The survey asks three questions -
What is your gender identification? boy, girl, other, etc...
What are you sexual tendencies? This is about feelings and desires regardless of whether you act on them.
What is your sexual preference? Tell me who and what you are? Rather than identify people by a complex list of cirteria and question, I simply let people tell me who they are.
If you don't want to add to the survey, simply right click on "View Results" and open them in a new Tab or Window. Then you can easily compare the results.
And just for fun, mostly for the guys, I have another survey -
quote:SAN FRANCISCO — With a series of simple “I dos,” gay couples across California inaugurated the state’s court-approved and potentially short-lived legalization of same-sex marriage on Monday, the first of what is expected to be a crush of such unions in coming weeks.
The weddings began in a handful of locations around the state at exactly 5:01 p.m., the earliest time allowed by last month’s decision by the California Supreme Court legalizing same-sex marriage. Many more ceremonies will be held on Tuesday when all 58 counties will be issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
RUN FOR THE HILLS! THIS IS GONNA DESTROY THE COUNTRY!!!!!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:To address your first point, that proves I'm not gay. Because I actually DO have a sexual tug toward my girlfriend. I just fight it to keep my brain at a relative level of sanity so that I can really show myself to her, instead of the clouded, stupid monster that wants nothing but to indulge in sexual fantasies.
I don't get it. So indulging in sex for reasons other than procreation makes one insane or stupid? And if that's the case, is a magic switch flipped at the time of marriage such that sex no longer makes one insane?
-pH
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Very interesting thread, and I have just read it beginning to end. As always, I very much appreciate Hatrackers' discussions on political/social topics. Your community, with commendable articulation, presents BOTH (*cough, I mean SEVERAL) views of the topic(s) being discussed.....and you mostly all seem to remain friends through the process. Bravo!
In this thread, you have discussed many things including support/opposition to gay marriage, civil unions, the definition and meaning of marriage in general, and even Jewish food codes.
Usually, I casually lurk here at Hatrack, as I have for the past several years (*sheepishly divulges). But I feel impelled to post here. I am not a savvy enough Hatracker to determine whether my post constitutes need of a new thread, as it may slightly shift the discussion (should anyone reply that is). So please inform me if a new thread would be more appropriate, and gladly I will shift to a new one.
I wish to present for discussion two hypothetical but very likely real situations relating to gay marriage, both from a first-person point of view.
For the first situation, I proceed on the premise that gay marriage will remain or become legal in some states (whether or not CA will continue to be among them), while other states will prohibit gay marriage.
-------------------------------------- SITUATION 1 I am a gay married man/woman who has worked for 15 years at a furniture plant. My spouse and children and I have a retirement plan and medical insurance benefits provided through my work. For fiscal reasons, the plant recently announced it was moving to another state. I along with my coworkers have been offered to retain our jobs (with moving perks even!) if we will relocate to the area where the new plant is being built.
Here's my dilemma: the state where the new plant will be located does not recognize gay marriage, meaning that they will not recognize the validity of my family. My employer will still honor retirement and insurance benefits for my spouse and children, but I realize that in the new state I will NOT have all other rights as I do currently. ( See list of rights not afforded to civil unions that are provided by marriage in MattP's previous post. )
Thus, I am being forced to choose between my livelihood and my marriage. What do I do?...... -------------------------------------------
This situation smells of a very reasonable court case that would be directed at a federal court level as to whether or not states must recognize other states' marriages.....
What do you think is appropriate/legal for such a situation?
________________________________________________________________________ SITUATION 2 I am a college student living with a roommate in a state where gay marriage is legal. We realize that state benefits for married college students are much better than for single students.
Though neither I nor my roommate are gay, we decide to get married and collect the larger benefits to help us through school. Then, at the end of college, we will get divorced. (Of course, though we live together, our marriage never involves physical intimacy. But, hey, we sure will get a lot more money for school!)
Friends tell us that we are being dishonest, but we tell them, "Hey, we live together, right? Besides, we know heterosexual married couples who for whatever reason are not physically intimate, yet their marriages are still recognized. How are we any different?" -----------------------------------
Let me make it clear that I DO NOT believe that the second situation is ethical or moral. I think it is wrong for someone to knowingly falsely exploit the system. Yet, sadly, from my experience, when it comes to money, many folks do just that.
How would/should a state proceed in such a situation?.......
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
1) I think all states in America should be expected to recognize any civil contract between two parties. Barring that, it seems to me that any state which refuses to recognize gay marriage will be at an obvious disadvantage when it comes to hiring employees; ergo, I expect that sort of foolishness to wither within a generation (although of course it doesn't mitigate the difficulties experienced by this one.) Once that genie's out of the bottle, it's essentially out of the bottle everywhere -- which is a good thing.
2) The state should proceed in the same way it would proceed if the parties were involved were of different genders. My mother married her second husband because she wanted to benefit from his insurance.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I am a college student living with a roommate in a state where gay marriage is legal. We realize that state benefits for married college students are much better than for single students.
Though neither I nor my roommate are gay, we decide to get married and collect the larger benefits to help us through school. Then, at the end of college, we will get divorced. (Of course, though we live together, our marriage never involves physical intimacy. But, hey, we sure will get a lot more money for school!)
Friends tell us that we are being dishonest, but we tell them, "Hey, we live together, right? Besides, we know heterosexual married couples who for whatever reason are not physically intimate, yet their marriages are still recognized. How are we any different?"
I hear fear about this a lot and I think it's unwarranted. As a female, I've had multiple male roommates. I'm certain that getting married for benefit/ convenience reasons never crossed any of our minds. Most people regard marriage as something to be treated seriously.
There's going to be a handful of people that abuse the system, but I don't think that's sufficient to ruin it for all those who have legitimate relationships.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: Barring that, it seems to me that any state which refuses to recognize gay marriage will be at an obvious disadvantage when it comes to hiring employees...
Really? The numbers we usually use are 1-3% of the population are exclusively gay. They're probably the bulk of the folks getting married. About half of the country is married, so if gay folks run about the same, we can expect between .5-1.5% of the population to be married gays.
If your state doesn't offer benefits to them, you're only discouraging at most 4.5 million people from living there. If 90% of people never experiment with homosexuality, you've got 270 million people who will never even think about that set of issues. Straight people would have to boycott certain states because of the issue before there would be enough impact to make a bit of difference at the state level.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
AvidReader, to clarify, your numbers would suggest that 3% of population is exclusively gay and another 7% "experiments" with homosexuality. So 10% total. Is this correctly what you mean? When you say the numbers "WE" use, what group is meant by "WE"?
Of the 7% who are not exclusively gay, do you mean they are bisexual or they merely "experiment" and then gravitate or return back to a heterosexual life?
I understand your point about how many people may never think about that set of issues as part of their immediate lives. If this were the only way that employees were affected by the issue, then by mere lack of strength of numbers, as you rightly suggest it would make little difference at the state level.
But I would suppose that most straight employees know other people who are gay, and I would dare go so far as to suppose that a large portion of straight folks have gay friends and/or family members. I would suppose that if presented with a situation as described above, many straight people could easily begin to boycott states in support of their gay friends and/or family members. So, such boycotts are plausible circumstances.
The situation as described above is not so much a numbers game (meaning proportion of population) as it is an individual rights question. No matter the number of people who may be affected by such a situation, the question remains about how a court would balance a person's livelihood against their right to a fully recognized marriage and family.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Gays, on average, happen to be better educated than non gays. That may skew the percentage of desirable employees upwards from a figure that only represents the percentage of the total population that gays make up.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: So 10% total. Is this correctly what you mean? When you say the numbers "WE" use, what group is meant by "WE"?
Here on Hatrack, those seem to be the generally accepted numbers. I've never been sure on the 10%, but I'm assuming it's some combination of bisexuals and experimenters. So another 3.5% might be unwilling to live somewhere at certain times in their lives (though with the number of girls I knew of who tried it only half-seriously in high school, I wonder).
As for this:
quote: ...most straight employees know other people who are gay, and I would dare go so far as to suppose that a large portion of straight folks have gay friends and/or family members. I would suppose that if presented with a situation as described above, many straight people could easily begin to boycott states in support of their gay friends and/or family members.
I suppose I have less faith in people than you do. The most common moral refrain I hear is "I don't want to get involved." You'd have to be awful close to that friend or family member to put their civil rights ahead of your own comfort and well-being. I don't believe most Americans would care enough.
The court is the real question. Would they overturn the Defense of Marriage Act if challenged?
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Your second scenerio would be great if it weren't for Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Romans 1:26,27 and 1 Cor 6:9,10. Christians would have to ignore God to tell their kids it's ok to engage in a homosexual relationship. That's an awful lot to ask of them.
I agree that kids should feel safe discussing anything they're struggling with with their parents. But being comfortable with yourself doesn't necessarily mean acting on your urges. It's not fair, but God was pretty clear about His disapproval. If a person would rather indulge themselves than obey God, that's their business (and applies to a whole lot more than just homosexuality - including my own fornication).
Everyone picks their own sins. It just doesn't make them stop being sins.
It doesn't have anything to do with the legal aspects of marriage; I just wanted to be clear about my response to Earendil18.
I don't recall God writing any of the passages mentioned. I do believe these tracts were written by God's followers, a very important distinction often forgotten for some reason. Yes, one's faith as a Christian, becomes potentially diluted if you start picking and choosing which aspects of the Bible are palatable to you, but I don't think God's particularly impressed w/one's leaving of their powers of reason elsewhere as well.
We have to suss out, for ourselves, whether we believe these words to be the direct word of God, or the word of God's humanly flawed messengers. I tend to view it as the latter. If God's message is a message of love as brought to us through Jesus, I've never, ever been able to find any kind of justification for the persecution, ostracism, or loathing (you're sexuality and the love you feel for your partner is evil and an abomination, but we swear you aren't! we really swear! We hate the sin, not the sinner!)in anything Jesus said, or for that matter in the faith as represented by Jesus, his teachings and his life and death.
Forgive me if I come across as irritable or a jerk in this, but this sort of thing tends to push my buttons, and it's one of the few issues I can't compromise on, much like racism.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: I don't recall God writing any of the passages mentioned. I do believe these tracts were written by God's followers, a very important distinction often forgotten for some reason.
You say that like it's a fact. God did write Leviticus. Or dictated every word, verbatim, to Moses, which is the same thing.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: I don't recall God writing any of the passages mentioned. I do believe these tracts were written by God's followers, a very important distinction often forgotten for some reason.
You say that like it's a fact. God did write Leviticus. Or dictated every word, verbatim, to Moses, which is the same thing.
Perhaps suggesting it is a fact is a bit presumptions, but it's certainly more reliable, in my view, than believing that Leviticus is a word for word representation of commands and speech God may have given to Moses. Bear in mind, I view the entire bible as being inspired by God through very fallible human beings. That belief certainly doesn't coincide w/the beliefs of many others here, but there's a heckuvalot more evidence on the side of inspiration, than on the side of direct conversation.
However, as you said yourself, I have posted in a way that suggests my opinions are facts, of course they aren't, I just view them as being based on reason and my own flawed writing, rather than faith.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Personally, I believe the Bible is another aspect of God. Yeah, occasionally Moses ends up with horns or something, but I've never heard about the important bits being mistranslated. If the Guy can create an entire universe because He wants to, I trust Him to watch over a book for a few thousand years.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by graywolfe: there's a heckuvalot more evidence on the side of inspiration, than on the side of direct conversation.
I don't think that's the case. If you do, would you mind presenting it?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)