quote: I think it is morally imperative that the state take the higher road sometimes and require that proof of danger or damage be shown before the rights of one segment of that society be curtailed.
How does the state determine when to do so, Karl?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoah! Spend a weekend doing housework, and the thread doubles in length!
I haven't even begun to catch up, though from the last page, I get the sense that my side's gained some less helpful contributors
Just one response to Karl:
"While it may be perfectly legal for the state to act this way, I think it is morally imperative that the state take the higher road sometimes and require that proof of danger or damage be shown before the rights of one segment of that society be curtailed."
This is why I recommend putting on the brakes. Social change has been happening so fast in America lately that neither side in this debate has had any time to develop evidence to support their position. It's all based on pie-in-the-sky imaginings of a perfect world in which each person's opinion is absolutely correct.
I would not be mortified to live in a nation where gay marriage was legal. I wouldn't launch a campaign to outlaw it, and I certainly would have no problem coexisting with married gay couples in a community.
My concern here is the fact that America has been through a rapid-fire series of changes to our view of marriage recently, and we've only had one generation to witness their effects. So far, the results don't look too good, and I think we would be insane to charge blindly on without first stopping to take stock of ourselves.
I work for the third-largest game developer in the world, and it's only six years old. One of the big reasons, in my mind, that my company is so successful is the fact that the bosses take a long view of our future. While many game developers split the royalties from massively successful games into instant bonuses for the creative team, my company invests all that money in the future of the company. So the developers of the Harry Potter games have smaller bank accounts than they might ... but they still have jobs, because the company is still afloat, and can weather bad years, which is an astonishing accomplishment in this business.
My concern is that America is too eager to hand out bonuses. "Yay, we've learned to be tolerant! More tolerant than any society in history! Quick, let's give everyone whatever they want!"
I think we'd be a lot wiser to invest in the future of our nation by measuring our changes and showing caution. Finding out exactly what works and what doesn't, then framing our society accordingly. It means that individuals may not get what they want when they want it. But in the end, their children will still have a strong and vibrant nation to belong to, rather than a decaying husk that fell apart because it charged too recklessly along the edge of a cliff.
Anyway. There's more I'd love to say, but I'm late for work. Seeya!
posted
Here's one of my criteria for saying that we shouldn't have gay marriage: reluctance to add extra structure to government. This is a basic principle for ultra-conservatives. In this light, we find fault with Bush on some levels, but that's another discussion that I don't want to do.
Therefore, we naturally ask, "why should we add gay marriage". That leads to the question, "why did we add regular marriage". And I think the best answer is stability, mostly for kids. The adults would be of secondary importance, since they are already developed and can, theoretically, take care of themselves. This appearantly is so important to the gov that it extends health care benefits to the spouse and tax breaks.
With gay marriage (or any legal extension of benefits), I think we take on a heavy financial burden without necessarily taking on the same benefits of regular marriage--therefore the extension is unwarranted. Especially, since as I understand it, healthcare costs for gays tend to be heavy.
But what if they provide stable environment for kids? Well, as I have said before, I don't think they should. It seems right to me, and there have been some studies that show, that children that have the influence of both a mother and a father in thier lives tend to have better outcomes. But even further than that, the vast majority of (if not all) kids are to find greatest fulfillment in heterosexual unions, and in the natural production of some children. To me, the gays will be detrimental to this outcome, since children tend to model their parents. (I wish I had some facts to give here. Maybe some day I'll put a big effort into data collection.)
I am convinced that the government has no need to recognize the love of the gay couples in any way.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, the point is, that you've decided its ok for the majority to restrict the rights of a minority... because you think its immoral. The logical extension of that is its ok to restrict rights anytime the majority thinks an activity the minority engages in is immoral.
Where do we draw the line, under that methodology? When its obvious someone else's rights are being undermined in order to prevent harm to society? Ok, but how do we TELL? And who's opinion are we going to ask?
The majority has been wrong, numerous times. In the interests of justice, I think we can't ask the majority to make decisions about granting or restricting rights without firm evidence that there is a necessary reason for restricting those rights.
Your answer seems to be that the majority decides when its ok to restrict rights. My point was, in my previous post, and remains, that the majority can decide some pretty stupid things, and restrict rights accordingly. In almost all these circumstances, in hindsight, there are very very few circumstances in which we've taken granted rights in a place previously none had existed, and damage has been done.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"That leads to the question, 'why did we add regular marriage.' And I think the best answer is stability, mostly for kids."
I think the REAL answer, which may not be the best answer, is that we godfathered "regular" marriage into our legal code when we created it. Looking back, this was clearly silly.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:KarlEd said:"While it may be perfectly legal for the state to act this way, I think it is morally imperative that the state take the higher road sometimes and require that proof of danger or damage be shown before the rights of one segment of that society be curtailed."
GC said:This is why I recommend putting on the brakes. Social change has been happening so fast in America lately that neither side in this debate has had any time to develop evidence to support their position. It's all based on pie-in-the-sky imaginings of a perfect world in which each person's opinion is absolutely correct.
I don't see how your call to "put on the brakes" answers the call for society to ensure that it treats all its members fairly. If a group is being discriminated against in basic rights and privileges (and I think there's little argument about the fact that barring gay marriage does harm their rights), then society needs to act to eliminate that discrimination.
You then said "yes, exactly. That's why we should go slowly." It makes no sense to me.
You went on to add this:
quote:My concern is that America is too eager to hand out bonuses. "Yay, we've learned to be tolerant! More tolerant than any society in history! Quick, let's give everyone whatever they want!"
I think we'd be a lot wiser to invest in the future of our nation by measuring our changes and showing caution. Finding out exactly what works and what doesn't, then framing our society accordingly. It means that individuals may not get what they want when they want it. But in the end, their children will still have a strong and vibrant nation to belong to, rather than a decaying husk that fell apart because it charged too recklessly along the edge of a cliff.
This is just another delaying tactic, to me. It says that on this issue in particular, you are not ready to proceed without complete data. The only data most people need on this is the fact of there being an inequality that doesn't sit well in our overall framework. It's not like anyone is handing out prizes for tolerance. It's more like people are suffering due to intolerance. Intolerance that you argue should continue, for the time being.
And your only argument for doing so is some kind of vague slippery slope thing -- or in this case, a "reckless off the edge of a cliff" thing.
Conservative thinking is good when it doesn't trample on the rights of others. When it does, however, I think it's cruel and destructive to all of us.
Compared to the "right to live in a world where gays can't marry" I think the rights of actual gay citizens matter more. And clearly and obviously matter more. There's no question that the rights of the living outweigh the fears of the potentially living (since you raise the spectre of not giving our children a good enough world to live in). Especially when we are talking rights that others already enjoy.
I keep coming back to the conservative push to keep laws on the books banning miscegenation. They were wrong. They trampled the rights of individuals in order to preserve some vague sense of "rightness" in the world. And the practice ended far too late for no other reason than the delaying tactics of a few people who had no good reason for it other than their sense of discomfort at the idea.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> I don't see why legally recognized marriages is a right. <<
All right then, let's say it's a privilege. A privilege granted only to heterosexual couples. That's still blatant discrimination.
Edit: Really, I see no reason for any heterosexual person to be up in arms about this at all. It simply does not affect heterosexuals. (I said that a few hundred posts back, too ). If it doesn't affect you, why do you care? The only answer is that you, the person opposing homosexual marriage, must have a bone to pick with homosexuality itself, and not the marriage of a loving homosexual couple. The only grounds on which homosexuality can be legitimately opposed are religious, and religous grounds don't warrant laws in a country that claims to keep church separate from state.
quote:Hey, I'm all for getting rid of legalized marriage. You with me?
So... the people saying this will tear apart the meaning marriage in our society were right. That's a nice encapsulation of what makes them nervous.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, Privileges can be based on critera, such as statistics--ie, priv to drive based on crash statistics. Or can be based on other criteria that is not necessarily discrimination but just good sense.
Tom, I don't know what I think about that.
I want to say that it also makes good sense to me that a gov not recognize plural marriages--it would be a great financial burden.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: With gay marriage (or any legal extension of benefits), I think we take on a heavy financial burden without necessarily taking on the same benefits of regular marriage--therefore the extension is unwarranted. Especially, since as I understand it, healthcare costs for gays tend to be heavy.
First, I'm not willing to accept your assumption that "healthcare costs for gays tend to be heavy." You will need to support that and I don't think it is supportable. First of all, there aren't likely any adequate studies of the matter. It's not likely that any of the healthcare that I have received has been counted, or more importantly, the relative lack of healthcare dollars expended on my account have probably not been included in any of these studies simply because nowhere on my medical records does it list me as being gay. I think that the vast majority of gays are uncounted in this way. I have never seen a general health care form that asked "Are you gay?"
So, it follows that you will have to prove your "heavy financial burden" premise before your arguement will hold weight.
Second, there have been many posts in this thread already calling into question your assumption that gay marriages don't provide the same benefits of "regular marriage". We can surmise that you believe the primary benefit of marriage is for the protection of children. Well, no one has adequately been able to demonstrate that gay parents can't raise kids with at least the average level of security and stability as the population at large.
And finally, if equality is morally desirable, some additional cost to society is certainly justified. We gay people work the same long hours and pay the same taxes that send your kids to school and pay your "straight marriage" costs and benefits. Should we get a tax break for being gay and thus saving society the potential costs of our marriage? Or do you just want to have your cake and eat it too?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
You may not have read my arguments, but that is my part of myy point. I want real studies done about the long term effect of these things.
When we argue that marriage is for children, we are not saying that those couples who cannot or choose not to have children are then a menace to marriage and society. We are saying that homosexual unions will result in couples that want to raise children. It is natural. Everyone wants to procreate, either biologically or by taking responsibility through adoption. Homosexuals are not immune to this.
They will want, and some will be able to get children, and this will affect society. And we really don't know how. We can wish, and hope that it goes the way we think it will go, but that is not a rational way of making social policy.
I think one of the biggest things hurting homosexual culture today is the promiscuity. I think that needs to be addressed, and by the homosexual community itself. If they want to be accepted as normalized, they need to impose some morals on themselves. They also need to be supportive of those homosexuals who choose to pursue a cure for themselves. They need to allow serious study into the causes of homosexuality that admits more than congenital and irreversable causes.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think would happen if health insurance companies started asking the "are you gay?" question because there are certain higher health risks, so that if you answer yes, you have to pay a higher premium?
How do you feel about the Red Cross questions? I can't even donate if I've had sex with a man who has had sex with a man since 1977.
Is that discrimination? Yes. Is it bigotry, or homophobia? No.
We have to properly evalutate the effects. And if homosexual couples do prove to be a higher risk situation than heterosexual couples, in regards to raising children, then homosexuals need to accept this as part of homosexuality.
quote: I also wish that they would not try to impose their lifestyle on unconsenting communities, like North Carolina.
Hmmm, I've never thought of my home state as a place that looked down on or shunned homosexuals. Seems there's a gay community that is vibrant, alive and embraced just about everywhere I've been.
You've mentioned NC twice as something of a bastion for your way of thinking. Have you been outside recently? Perhaps within the last 30 years or so?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Compared to the 'right to live in a world where gays can't marry' I think the rights of actual gay citizens matter more."
Come on, Bob. Where did I say that I was defending my right to live in a world "where gays can't marry"? Whether or not gays can marry has no direct effect on me whatsoever, and I said as much in my last post. My concern is for the indirect effect that rushing into this change might or might not have on everyone. So take out your frustrations about bigotry on somebody else.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I want to say that it also makes good sense to me that a gov not recognize plural marriages--it would be a great financial burden.
Point us to some data to back this up. What are these great financial burdens you're touting? If you're talking about healthcare, well, guess what? People are going to get cared for one way or another. That cost is going to be paid whether it's coverage under a spouse or coverage under a different government program. Or are you suggesting that if we can only keep sick gays from being able to make claims under the title of "spouse" then we can just let them die silenced and un-cared-for? Currently, my company offers domestic partnership benefits for gays. It hasn't hurt them one bit. In fact, it has been an added incentive for some bright and productive individuals to choose my company over the competition.
Other than healthcare, which I think is a red herring, what other great financial burdens would gay (or polygamous) couples wreak on society?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Privileges can be based on critera, such as statistics--ie, priv to drive based on crash statistics. Or can be based on other criteria that is not necessarily discrimination but just good sense. <<
Of course. But none of those things applies to homosexual marraige.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really Amka? I don't think so. But, I could be wrong. I know you have to wait 12 months after getting a tattoo. Of course, you have to wait 12 months after being treated for STD's too, so. . .
posted
>> I think one of the biggest things hurting homosexual culture today is the promiscuity. I think that needs to be addressed, and by the homosexual community itself. If they want to be accepted as normalized, they need to impose some morals on themselves. <<
Wouldn't allowing them to marry further this goal?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And since you can still donate the blood, but put a barcode sticker on it saying whether you want the blood to be used or not (done in strict privacy and can't be read until it is processed, anonymously) I don't see what the big problem is. The Red Cross has literally bent over backwards to not "out" someone or to allow them to have some dignity. They basically allow you to outright lie on the questionaire and then not have your blood used.
Personally, I've always wondered how much money is wasted on this anonymity/protection deal. All of the questions are in a booklet you are supposed to read before donating. At any time a person can simply stand up and walk out, with no questions asked.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how - I can't imagine that the people who are promiscuous are thinking "If only I could promise not to do this, I wouldn't do it."
You don't have to be married to not sleep around.
The idea smacks of those who believe that once they are married, all problems in their relationship will dissapear. Now, I don't have experience with this, but I'd bet my life this isn't true.
HIV, AIDS Those who are at increased risk for becoming infected with HIV are not eligible to donate blood. According to the Food and Drug Administration, you are at increased risk if:
you are a male who has had sex with another male since 1977, even once;
you have ever used a needle, even once, to take drugs or steroids that were not prescribed by a physician;
you have taken clotting factor concentrates for a bleeding disorder such as hemophilia;
you were born in or lived in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Niger, or Nigeria since 1977 (This requirement is related to concerns about HIV Group O. Learn more about HIV Group O.)
you have taken drugs or money in exchange for sex since 1977;
you have ever had a positive test for HIV virus;
you have symptoms of HIV infection including unexplained weight loss, night sweats, blue or purple spots on or under the skin, long-lasting white spots or unusual sores in your mouth, lumps in your neck, armpits, or groin that last more than a month, fever higher than 99 degrees that lasts more than 10 days, diarrhea lasting over a month, or persistent cough and shortness of breath;
Wait for 12 months after close contact with someone who is at an increased risk for HIV infection. This occurs when paying to have sex, as a result of rape, or when having sex with an IV drug user.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One question that has been roaming around for me is if homosexual marriage is eventually allowed by law, what other forms of marriage will they have to relook?
Polygamy, for example. Would the government then have to look at this as a matter of consenting adults?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think one of the biggest things hurting homosexual culture today is the promiscuity. I think that needs to be addressed, and by the homosexual community itself. If they want to be accepted as normalized, they need to impose some morals on themselves.
One of the most annoying assertions in this thread is that homosexuals are by nature more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I have no idea if this is really true, and neither do you. Was a census taken? What were the questions? Are you gay? If you answered yes, do you like to engage in freaky sex?
Basically people are making a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions. Your point is irrelevant in that sexual promiscuity is not restricted to any persuasion. I think you're simply brainwashed by anti-gay media hype.
Posts: 1855 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to drag something in here that probably should be added to the pot, but hey it's hatrack why not. In Isreal they do not have civil marriages. Only religous ones http://www.irac.org/article_e.asp?artid=16 This increases their hypocricsy with the whole forbidding marriage with the Christian Arabs and the Palestinians.
Every religous marriage (except the same sex ones) in the US is also recognized as a civil one. Most pastors become "justices of the peace" temporarily while marrying somebody. In some cases it has to be a pastor registered in that state. My parents wanted my grandfather (an army chaplain) to marry them, but he couldn't legally marry them in the state of Kentucky because he wasn't registered there. So he did the entire ceremony and then a Kentucky licensed pastor stood up, just to say "I now pronounce you man and wife". That pastor was the one who signed the marriage license.
Removing marriage from the civil arena, though I am not necessarily opposed to it, causes havoc with existing property and inheritance rights for everyone. Maybe that would be the fair thing to do, make the rest of society go through the same legal headaches a gay couple has. Actually that would cause people to be much more explicit in their wishes, and maybe it would remove many of the legal headaches that the vagueness of our current system causes for heterosexuals as well.
quote: You may not have read my arguments, but that is my part of myy point. I want real studies done about the long term effect of these things.
When we argue that marriage is for children, we are not saying that those couples who cannot or choose not to have children are then a menace to marriage and society. We are saying that homosexual unions will result in couples that want to raise children. It is natural. Everyone wants to procreate, either biologically or by taking responsibility through adoption. Homosexuals are not immune to this.
They will want, and some will be able to get children, and this will affect society. And we really don't know how. We can wish, and hope that it goes the way we think it will go, but that is not a rational way of making social policy.
One thing that strikes me as odd about your point of view (which is shared by others, I know) is that you seem to be crying for data and solutions to problems but at the same time espousing policies that would make such data and solutions impossible.
"Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because then they'll want kids and there is no data showing they could care for them within a gay marriage. Let's wait for more data?" Well, that's nice and convenient circular arguing. I don't think the vote should be extended to women. There is no indication that they can handle voting. Let's wait until we see how they handle voting before we let them vote.
Edited because I quoted the wrong part of the post
quote:My concern is for the indirect effect that rushing into this change might or might not have on everyone.
So, do you admit you are just making a slippery slope argument?
Let me rephrase my objection to your previous statement. Your call to "wait for data" is a call to continue a situation that is unfair and harmful to actual living citizens. In defense of that stance, you only offer vague conjecture about "possible harm".
And frankly, I think your image of America careening off a cliff does demonstrate some bias on your part. You seem to be trying to come off as having a measured, steady approach, but then your reason for wanting that is some vague fear.
It doesn't sit well when there are real problems and inequalities that people are suffering under now, today.
To me, it does sound cruel. It sounds just like the people arguing against mixed race marriages.
Sure, we don't know what the effect on society will be. But if you have no logical reason to ban it, why are we banning it? Because of "comfort zones." Right? It all comes down to fear of an unknown and people, conservatives especially, letting that vague fear override their sense of fairness and justice.
I find that regrettable if it's a situation where no-one is harmed by the continuation of the status quo. But when you can see actual harm -- as in this case -- caused to people who contribute to society, then I think the call for delay is cruel.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, now that we've established that it is true that Red Cross will not take the blood of a sexually active gay man, back to my point.
We need real studies, not biased by either side.
We need to evaluate sexual permissiveness as whole and its effect on society and the environment in which children are raised.
And if we find that there is increased risk, and lower family stability in the long term, with the advent of homosexual couples parenting, then we need to evaluate if that risk outweighs the privilage of being able to adopt and foster children, or using state monies to help fund homosexually derived infertility (using sperm donors or surregate moms).
So far, from my own anectodal evidence, and the link I referenced, I am lean toward that there is an increased risk.
These things aren't a matter of homophobia or bigotry. They are a matter of needing real data, and if homosexual couples do get passed over for adoptions because of the results of those studies, they will be a matter of risk assesment based on scientific studies, not hate or even morality.
And KarlEd, this has been my argument. I don't think it is purely "because God says so".
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> I don't see how - I can't imagine that the people who are promiscuous are thinking "If only I could promise not to do this, I wouldn't do it."
You don't have to be married to not sleep around. << (kat)
True.
>> The idea smacks of those who believe that once they are married, all problems in their relationship will dissapear. Now, I don't have experience with this, but I'd bet my life this isn't true. << (kat)
And I agree. I think, though, that having the option to marry would have this sort of effect because 'marriage' has more serious connotations than 'long-term committed relationship.'
I could, of course, be wrong.
>> Polygamy, for example. Would the government then have to look at this as a matter of consenting adults? << (Sopwith)
Allowing homosexual marriage doesn't require a change in the legal definition of marriage, though -- only in its interpretation. Thus I don't think that's a valid comparison.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't a call to wait and do nothing. It is a call to study the situation. We have, at our hands, the data to do so. Many lesbian couples have raised children, and some of those are starting to come into adulthood.
Lets do some real, unbiased studies on their relationship patterns, on unmarried pregnancy rates, rates of STDs, etc.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since I think the legal definition of marriage is between one man and one marriage, I disagree with this.
quote:Allowing homosexual marriage doesn't require a change in the legal definition of marriage, though -- only in its interpretation. Thus I don't think that's a valid comparison.
If a man, and two women all love each other and they all want to get married into the same union, what are the arguments against it?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That the law would have to be changed. This is not the case with homosexual marriage.
Edit: In Canada the law says that marriage is between two people. Thus the recent ruling allowing homosexual marriage. Since the marriage law does not specify gender anywhere, homosexual marriage is allowed. Polygamy is not allowed because the law says that only two people are allowed to get married together.
In other words, allowing polygamy would require a change in the law. Allowing homosexual marriage does not.
posted
Not at all. As far as I know Canadian law always just said "two people;" it was convention that kept homosexuals from getting married.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). If it doesn't affect you, why do you care? The only answer is that you, the person opposing homosexual marriage, must have a bone to pick with homosexuality itself, and not the marriage of a loving homosexual couple. The only grounds on which homosexuality can be legitimately opposed are religious, and religous grounds don't warrant laws in a country that claims to keep church separate from state.
