quote:As we've discussed here, many of the studies done on the subject have been of small focus groups of children, with heavy interests on the part of the researchers conducting the studies.
That reminds me . . . can anybody speak to the authenticity of Card's claim that these studies were almost all carried out by lesbians?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott R -- our current standards aren't doing too good a job of the situation. There are around 80,000 children every year who need to be adopted but aren't. Is it doing more harm to slightly relax adoption standards or continue to deprive the children of permanent families?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Homosexuality has been around for a lot longer than the longitudinal studies that have been taking place
Not in American society, and certainly not as a cultural phenomena. While you can point to Sparta, Greece, and the Pacific Northwest for examples of societies that in some special cases allowed or encouraged homosexual relations, you'll find very little evidence of homosexual parenting.
You cannot appeal to history for this particular discussion-- there's simply no precedent. Unless you count Zeus and Ganymede, which you don't want to do.
quote: there is no evidence to show that homosexuality adversely affects child rearing.
Not in any of the studies you've read, apparently, or in the ones you choose to trust.
But I've already addressed my feeling on studies on this topic.
quote:Considering many "traditional" gender roles are the result of sexist traditions, would it be right to continue to promote them?
As opposed to promoting MODERN, sexist gender roles?
No, not if those roles are harmful to the society.
But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I note there are a lot of subjective terms in there, John--traditional, right, sexist. How do you propose to come to an agreement on what those terms mean?
Especially the term, 'right.' That's a biggie.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are around 80,000 children every year who need to be adopted but aren't. Is it doing more harm to slightly relax adoption standards or continue to deprive the children of permanent families?
Why aren't they being adopted?
And how many more adoptions would be taking place if homosexuals were allowed to adopt?
quote:While you can point to Sparta, Greece, and the Pacific Northwest for examples of societies that in some special cases allowed or encouraged homosexual relations, you'll find very little evidence of homosexual parenting.
Since parenting styles were radically different in all of those listed, you'd have a hard time comparing most practices today with then.
quote:You cannot appeal to history for this particular discussion-- there's simply no precedent.
That's the reason why I say religion has no right bringing up thousands-years-old laws that have no direct bearing on the modern world.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- there is no evidence to show that homosexuality adversely affects child rearing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not in any of the studies you've read, apparently, or in the ones you choose to trust.
Got any longitudinal studies that contradict them? Because any that have been done over longer periods have show no adverse effects. Care to educate me otherwise?
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Considering many "traditional" gender roles are the result of sexist traditions, would it be right to continue to promote them? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As opposed to promoting MODERN, sexist gender roles?
Ask your wife next time she goes to vote.
quote:No, not if those roles are harmful to the society.
But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And don't hold the baby under the bathwater just because it's not what you want it to be.
quote:I note there are a lot of subjective terms in there, John--traditional, right, sexist. How do you propose to come to an agreement on what those terms mean?
Traditional: having been employed for many years, generations, or longer, passed down by descendents. Sexist: discrinimatory (often in the pejorative) based solely on gender. Right: a just or legal claim.
Looks like the dictionary work just fine.
quote:Especially the term, 'right.' That's a biggie.
Which I already addressed early on, and you told me you didn't think I was catching on. It's easy to dismiss something as not being a right when you already enjoy the privileges of it. When it comes to something like marriage, I'm more than willing to bet it'd become quite a huge right were the tables turned.
It's easy to say it's no big deal when you have nothing to lose. Just like I said from the start.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against homosexuals or any other group regarding adoption if it can be proven that such a group, in general, is less capable of raising children than nonmembers.
However, it has yet to be proven (and my gut feeling is that it will not be proven) that homosexuals are, in fact, less capable. Therefore I believe that they should have equivalent adoption rights as heterosexuals. In a generation or two, hopefully society will be in a much better position to determine whether a homosexual couple is detrimental to the well being of a child or not. If such is found to be the case, then I would indeed support discrimination based upon sexual orientation for adoption.
Such discrimination need not be, and indeed probably should not be, a total ban. Likely a simple rule that states all else being equal, a heterosexual couple should be given preference would be the best thing. On the other hand, if homosexual unions are found to be superior to heterosexual unions, then that rule should be reversed.
That was idealistic. Practically, I doubt an unbiased study will ever be done, and I am not sure if one is even possible. Until one or more are done, homosexual unions should be considered equal, seeing as how homosexual citizens are supposed to be treated equally.
Edit: Removed ambiguous pronoun in last sentence; replaced with "homosexual citizens".
Edit again: Also, it may well be the case that lesbian couples are better/worse/equal at raising children, while gay men are something else. In that case, I would also support discrimination between genders of homosexual unions, both with respect to each other and to heterosexual unions.
quote:I feel it is perfectly reasonable to discriminate against homosexuals or any other group regarding adoption if it can be proven that such a group, in general, is less capable of raising children than nonmembers.
However, it has yet to be proven (and my gut feeling is that it will not be proven) that homosexuals are, in fact, less capable.
And given most current statistics of opinion, it's going to be a stretch getting an accurate study in either direction because of this. This won't stop people from aassuming danger before any proof anyway.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why aren't they being adopted? I think, unfortunately, for many of them, it is because they've already proven to be more than normal parents can handle. Heterosexual parents who would be most likely to qualify have their own children. When considering fostering children they must ask themselves the question: how much harm to my family can we sustain in order to take this child in? How much emotional fortitude do I have to absorb the anger and pain this child will lash out? It is one of the harshest truths in this world, because each of these kids needs someone with the special abilities to take care of them. But those people need to be _more_ stable than the norm, I believe. And those kind of people are rare.
On Geoff's topic:
Let me up the anty a little bit on Geoff's 'psychological phenomenom'. What if someone were just a little homosexual? They detected a slight attraction to the same gender. They realize, as an adult, that if they'd been influenced just a little, perhaps seduced by someone of the same gender, that they could easily have gone down that path. That their memory of childhood would have been colored by that decision. They realize that there are certain sexual desires in them that could be congruent with homosexual desires. But they are married, in a heterosexual relationship, and they deeply love their spouse of the opposite sex and are, in fact, quite sexually attracted to them.
What should they do?
What should have happened while they were in puberty?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since parenting styles were radically different in all of those listed, you'd have a hard time comparing most practices today with then.
Since the practice of homosexuality was radically different in all of those I listed, and in every other time period the world has known, as compared to ours, appealing to history to influence this debate IS rather futile, isn't it?
quote:That's the reason why I say religion has no right bringing up thousands-years-old laws that have no direct bearing on the modern world.
And knowing your objection to religious reasoning, I haven't brought any to the table.
quote:Because any that have been done over longer periods have show no adverse effects. Care to educate me otherwise?
No-- I've explained the problems I've had with all the studies I've seen. See my posts previous to this one.
quote: As opposed to promoting MODERN, sexist gender roles? __________________________________________
Ask your wife next time she goes to vote.
Lawdy, a woman voting! How you DO carry on!
Do you honestly want to defend the position that modern sexist gender roles do no harm?
quote:And don't hold the baby under the bathwater just because it's not what you want it to be.
You'd prefer I toss it on the grill?
Mmm. I love me some good barbecued baby.
John, I'm sorry, I can't seriously address you when you confuse analogies like this. What baby am I holding under the water? Can you explain yourself?
quote: Right: a just or legal claim.
Actually, the 'right' that I was speaking of was in the context of the quote I took off you-- as follows:
quote:would it be right to continue to promote them?
Right, as you used it, and as I quoted you, meaning, 'correct.' Or 'just.'
It's subjective, and Webster's don't get the final word this time.
quote:homosexual unions should be considered equal, seeing as how they are supposed to be treated equally.
The government has established precedent that no one gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to adoption, Danzig. In my understanding, anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, if he did, and if there are, what's the significance? Black people can't do sociological studies on other black people? Hispanic people, white people, straight people, etc? Shouldn't we judge whether or not something is wrong based on the evidence provided?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since the practice of homosexuality was radically different in all of those I listed, and in every other time period the world has known, as compared to ours, appealing to history to influence this debate IS rather futile, isn't it?
So is debating the "historical basis" for the word marriage, then, since marriage today is not like any in religious history. It covers too many faiths and too many types of people for any single interest to attempt to "defend" it.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Because any that have been done over longer periods have show no adverse effects. Care to educate me otherwise? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No-- I've explained the problems I've had with all the studies I've seen. See my posts previous to this one.
You disregard research I've referenced, but refuse to cite any here? Give me a hint about what studies contradict the existing ones. How about an answer to the claim that the studies were all conducted by lesbians. Are they all part of a conspiracy? What's the threat?
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As opposed to promoting MODERN, sexist gender roles? __________________________________________
Ask your wife next time she goes to vote. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawdy, a woman voting! How you DO carry on!
Listen, I've remained very calm to this point. If you want, I can go back to the snide remarks as well.
quote:Do you honestly want to defend the position that modern sexist gender roles do no harm?
Since I never said that, I don't know where you get that impression. My whole point has been that the removal of discrimination and unfair treatment in any direction is harmful.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And don't hold the baby under the bathwater just because it's not what you want it to be. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'd prefer I toss it on the grill?
Mmm. I love me some good barbecued baby.
John, I'm sorry, I can't seriously address you when you confuse analogies like this. What baby am I holding under the water? Can you explain yourself?
I swear, how many times does the freaking list of breaks, privileges, and allowances that married couples currently enjoy simply by being married have to be given a run-down? How many times does it have to be pointed out that homosexuals are not afforded these things? Not only are they not afforded them, but are denied them. Holding under the water—holding back those rights. Just because you already enjoy them does not mean that they are not worth fighting for.
quote:Actually, the 'right' that I was speaking of was in the context of the quote I took off you-- as follows:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- would it be right to continue to promote them? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, as you used it, and as I quoted you, meaning, 'correct.' Or 'just.'
It's subjective, and Webster's don't get the final word this time.
And neither does any church, which as I already pointed out, is the only entity making a moral or 'correct' argument on this.
quote:The government has established precedent that no one gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to adoption, Danzig. In my understanding, anyway.
And as I said, do you think they should also do this with marriage? Because whether for or against, the government is going to be making such a decision.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ami, that's really a silly freaking question. The point of the reference to the Kinsey Institute is that they determine the different levels of sexual preference, and that they have many solid theories on the different combinations of preference.
Are you saying that all homosexuals should bite some bullet and marry someone they can find at least nominally acceptable, rather than be able to live their life comfortably? When did we fall back into the Middle Ages?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Nice "objective" article there, Scott. Guess you couldn't just reference the actual site (mirrored at the Indiana University).
You know what, dude? Since you're really not willing to actually discuss it, and instead are going to say that no factual studies that have been done are worthwhile and rolling your eyes at me when I remain calm, consider me out of the conversation.
Nice to see that I was wrong in thinking that taking the calm approach would accomplish anything.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
This is my point: since there are varying degrees of homosexuality, (and I was aware of that) there is choice involved. Just like a person can manage ADD up to a point, a person can manage homosexuality up to a point.
Would my hypothetical person be more or less happy if they had been seduced into the homosexual lifestyle?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
This is my point: since there are varying degrees of homosexuality, (and I was aware of that) there is choice involved. Just like a person can manage ADD up to a point, a person can manage homosexuality up to a point.
Would my hypothetical person be more or less happy if they had been seduced into the homosexual lifestyle?
Because you're assuming being "seduced" and not someone making a choice all on their own. And by whose values are we judging the decision in the first place? By what values are we judging the circumstances that led up to the marriage to begin with? You see, there are so many variables, but only heterosexuality is allowed marriage right now—perhaps he wished to be married, but only had that opportunity with a woman. What if homosexual marriage was allowed? Would he have been able to make a less damaging decision from the start?
Scott, I linked to the institute itself. If I posted scathing accounts of leaders of various churches, would that make my argument any more cogent? No, which is why I didn't do it. My whole point is allowing equal opportunity for people to be able to have their own choices, to not be forced to have only one available. After all, is the fact that the founding fathers of the nation had slaves make arguments for black civil rights forfeit?
Or do you have more rude dismissals? I've addressed your posts, but you've addressed exactly jack and squat of my first one in this thread.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed the edit, and I appreciate it. Still, I've really addressed the secular reasoning side—there's no evidence to assume a threat or danger. Are you really going to require I prove a negative, or do you have something that shows a danger?
And my entire first post still stands. History aside, the only argument against homosexual marriage is that it "belongs" to heterosexuals, which is, as I said, socially immature.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Let me word it in a more innocent fashion. What if someone, who had already confirmed them self a homosexual, fell for the person who was not really yet aware of such feelings. What if they became friends, and flirtatious activities led to more. Let us say that sex never even entered the equation at that point, just a couple of awkward, oopsy kisses. But that was the point when this person realized that they really were attracted to the same sex. Looking back at their life, they now attribute every bit of wierdness as part of their homosexuality. They have now been sexually turned on, and it was someone of the same gender that did it.
Stay with me here: remember, this is the 'what if' of the same person who grew up to marry someone of the opposite sex and realized only then their homosexual attractions, who now has those tendancies to manage.
quote:The conversation's moved ON, brother. I didn't even READ your initial post.
This is what I mean. Why the hell should I even bother trying to understand the opposing view—assuming I don't already—when mine doesn't even get heard?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because you're a really spiffy guy, who's got great hair, and knows how to tear sheets of corrugated metal apart with his earlobes?
John, honestly, that's just the way I go about using Hatrack. I didn't read Geoff's post either.
EDIT:
Went back and read your first post.
Hmm.
I'll have to ruminate on it for a bit. Because, honestly, I've been trying to work on a short story, and this argument has been keeping me from it. And I've got an hour and a half left to myself (at work, pretty quiet, no children jumping on my cranium), which I plan to use for that.
Maybe.
[ February 29, 2004, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
S'okay. I have about 800 years' worth of information to put into a series of nice, neat little essays. Take your time, as I should be working on other stuff as well.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me if this has been brought up before, but is marriage a right or a priviledge?
If it is a right, could someone list the pertinent part of the Bill of Rights?
If it is a priviledge, how is it bestowed on individuals? Age is obviously a requirement, citizenship as well (it takes a lot of work to be able to marry someone who is not a US citizen legally), anything else?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:[1] If it is a right, could someone list the pertinent part of the Bill of Rights?
The ninth amendment to the US constitution states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Concern was raised by some of the founding fathers "that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was unrestrained as to those."FindLaw (Cases, Codes and Regulations)
quote:Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.'' (see above FindLaw link)
That is, the grounds for this sort of objection has been foreseen as the Bill of Rights was debated, and so a means of rebutting it was included by formal amendment.
quote:[2] If it is a priviledge, how is it bestowed on individuals? Age is obviously a requirement, citizenship as well (it takes a lot of work to be able to marry someone who is not a US citizen legally), anything else? [emphasis added]
No, it does not. All you have to do is marry a non-US citizen in another country, or bring that non-US citizen into the US on temporary admittance and, well, marry him or her.***
quote:Validity of Marriages Abroad
In general, marriages which are legally performed and valid abroad are also legally valid in the United States. American Citizen Services
So, for example, when I married my Canadian husband in Canada, all I had to do was present my birth certificate and driver's license (verifying my identity), an official copy of my divorce decree (verifying that I was, indeed, no longer married to my previous husband), and we invited over a justice of the peace. I made a lovely crudite platter, served alongside carved roast beef on yeasty fresh dinner rolls.
*** The process would have been exactly the same in the US -- we checked. However, he wouldn't have been able to stay in the US without applying for a visa. Still, the US government would have acknowledged our marriage as valid.
Mind you, obtaining a visa based on marriage to a US citizen is quite complicated, but it is much less so than most other ways of obtaining a visa. That, however, is a function of the difficulty of obtaining a visa in general -- the marriage itself is still recognized by the US government, regardless of US visa status. It's an immigration question that is separate from the marriage question.
posted
Nice information, CT but doesn't answer the question. Just because the constitution allows for there to be other rights besides those listed in the Bill of Rights doesn't answer whether or not marriage should be considered one of those rights.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is the pertinant part of the constitution. That is, it is explicitly acknowledged that there are rights not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, there was explicit concern that the Bill of Rights not be used as an exclusionary tool.
So, marriage is not listed in the Bill of Rights as a right. Doesn't mean it is a right, but doesn't mean it isn't. The US constitution doesn't settle the matter, but the fact that it isn't explicitly covered is irrelevant.
(What is unclear about how I phrase this? Honest question.)
[Sopwith stated: "If it is a right, could someone list the pertinent part of the Bill of Rights?" That is a conditional clause which rests on an inaccurate assumption, namely, that if something qualifies as a legal right, it will necessarily be enumerated in the Bill of Rights. So, I answered Sopwith's question by pointing him to the portion of the Constitution which contradicts this inaccurate assumption. (Am I making sense to anyone? ]
posted
I got you. I thought you were automatically asserting that it IS a right. What you're saying is that the constitution doesn't say one way or the other, but just because it's not there doesn't mean it's precluded from being a right.
Makes sense.
To me, a right, is something that the government is prohibited from taking away from you. Like my right to free speech. Driving doesn't qualify - you can lose that privilege based on poor behavior. Voting doesn't qualify, you can lose that privilege as well. Marriage doesn't qualify, not everyone can get married, as you yourself pointed out. Had you not produced your divorce decree, proving you were no longer married to anyone else, you would not have been able to obtain a valid marriage license.
I think the word "right" is used too freely. We apply it to things that aren't really rights, but rather privileges instead.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the founders believed that the rights were present before enumeration, and that they did not so much create rights as recognize rights which already were held (implicitly) by the people.
This is why Madison stated before Congress his concern about the Bill of Rights that "it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out ... were consequently insecure." So, in the original dialogue, the rights were acknowledged as existent before the enumeration, rather than being established by that listing in the constitution.
Mind you, I'm no worshipper of the founding fathers, and I think a living constitution is more valuable than gravestone-polishing. It is odd, though, how varied the use of the terms has become.
As a privilege, we need to look at whether we need to add to the conditions under which that particular privilege is granted.
Since states determine many of the deciding factors under which a marriage is considered valid (i.e age limits, the requirements of a blood test, etc), doesn't this fall outside the realm of the federal government? Shouldn't this be left up to the individual states?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Sopwith, you interpret the US constitution under your own definition of "rights," rather than that which was intended? Why then should society as a whole be constrained by your personal definition? (an honest question, not a dig. I'm really curious about how we interpret texts.)
posted
Sopwith, I absolutely agree. It should be. The problem is, if California decides to legalize gay marriage, and Alabama outlaws it (by passing an amendment saying marriage is defined as between a man and a woman only, which is what Alabama's state legislature is currently pursuing) then does a gay couple married in California, still enjoy the same privileges under Alabama law that they do under California law? Can they still file state taxes as a married couple? Does the same property rules apply to them as they do a married man and woman? (my name is on the property deed, though my name is not on the mortgage loan, because of Alabama law, for ex.)
That's where it gets more difficult.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sopwith isn't interpreting the constitution, CT, he's saying the states should be allowed to set their own parameters under which a marriage license is granted.
Do I have that right Sopwith?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And given that, I think the best course of action is to dole out no preferences whatsoever.
Maybe, but it would be unfair to conservatives to apply this idea now, when our government does not follow it anywhere else. After all, we give special benefits to the poor, the rich, the disabled, the hard-working, the gifted, the married, and even those with certain skin colors.
quote:And yet you may marry. Homosexuals may not.
Let's be clear here. Nobody is being denied the right to marry. People are simply being denied the right to marry members of their own sex. I think that even the most conservative on this issue agree that homosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, can you understand why most people find that argument not only disingenuous but insulting?
"Certainly, clowns can go to college. Clowns can go to CLOWN college. So don't say we're discriminating against you."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: The "right to marry" has been held to be a fundamental human right by the US Supreme Court long before the question of same-sex marriage arose. The right to marry was explicitly reserved to the individual, not to the state. See, for example,
quote:The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
This of course was in response to the refusal of Virginia to acknowledge a biracial marriage. However, the SCOTUS ruling was based on decree about the "right to marry," which was thereby acknowledged. That part of the judgment was not based on the status of race. It is still a matter of interpretation whether sex should also be recognized as of a similar status.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, a right, is something that the government is prohibited from taking away from you. Like my right to free speech. Driving doesn't qualify - you can lose that privilege based on poor behavior. Voting doesn't qualify, you can lose that privilege as well. Marriage doesn't qualify, not everyone can get married, as you yourself pointed out. Had you not produced your divorce decree, proving you were no longer married to anyone else, you would not have been able to obtain a valid marriage license.
This seems circular to me. We restrict this, ergo, it's not a right, and can be restricted.
Do we have a right to life? Currently, you can lose that right due to poor behavior. If you are opposed to abortion, then you believe we are failing to respect that right for fetuses (feti?). You can lose your inalienable right to liberty due to poor behavior as well. Based on this, I would sy that Jefferson's use of the word "inalienable" was little more than a rhetorical right, as clearly rights could be alienated, when they conflicted with the rights of others. So the fact that a right can be removed or restricted does not make it automatically a privilege and not a right.
How do I differentiate between a right and a privilege. Well, first of all, I don't recognize that distinction. A privilege is what we call a right we want to take away. It is a meaningless word with only semantic value. So the question to me is better stated as "under what circumstances do I believe rights can be taken away?" I feel that this point is when continuing to extend your rights infringes upon the rights of others. In my opinion, none of the opponents of gay marriage have justified that it infringes upon the rights of anybody else (or damages the institution of marriage, which is a way of saying the same thing). As an adult, you can lose your right to live when you kill other people. You can lose your right to drive when your driving behavior endangers other people's lives. I don't see gay marriage as fitting this pattern.
-o-
As far as where this right is enumerated in the constitution . . . I would look the Declaration of Independence instead, and consider it part of the pursuit of happiness.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, this is exactly the same reasoning that was used to deny the legitimacy of biracial marriage: "Nobody is being denied the right to marry. People are simply being denied the right to marry members of a different race."
So, why do you not accept that reasoning too, or do you?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah! I already addressed the "is it a right?" straw man.
Being able to marry itself is basically a station. The many things granted under marriage are a right to anyone who is married. Since homosexuals are being denied the ability to reach this status (as homosexuals), they are being denied those rights. Right means "a legal or just claim." Are any of you seriously going to lie and say you don't have things afforded you in the legal sense, as well as many other senses, because you are married?
Like I also already said, it's easy to say it isn't a right when you're not the ones being denied it. That's really damn arrogant of you people to even try that kind of argument. If the government took away all the extras you were afforded by being married tomorrow, you'd be in a friggin uproar about lost rights. Hypocrites.
And tres:
quote:Let's be clear here. Nobody is being denied the right to marry. People are simply being denied the right to marry members of their own sex. I think that even the most conservative on this issue agree that homosexuals can marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to.
What a weak argument. So, a homosexual can have those rights as long as they engage in heterosexual behavior? Gee, too bad it wasn't that easy for those damn blacks to just act more white a hundred years ago. Once again, how the hell is that equality, tres?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can almost guarantee that this SCOTUS would find that "the right to marry" in those cases refers specifically to "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex." It would probably be a significant majority as well, although there'd probably by 10 different opinions between the nine justices.
I'm surprised no one's gone for it yet. Has any state supreme court denied a suit requesting homosexual marriage or civil union yet? That would be the necessary prerequisite before SCOTUS gets their hands on it.
posted
I'm just relieved that you guys stopped drowning and grilling babies.
By the by, A Rat Named Dog, I liked your post for being sincere and thoughtful. Thank you.
I should just back away from this thread; a recent thread about abortion as a political litmus test made me remember the issues that matter more to me, and I've been trying to avoid getting excited over the gay marraige issue. But I'm a curious sucker for punishment.
I'm not convinced by the arguement that "homosexuals have been around forever", or "these cultures accepted homosexuality".
I don't dispute that. But according to LDS doctrine, there have always been followers of Christ in every human age, and some cultures were made up of nothing but Christians. (E.g., the City of Enoch).
Does that match or trump the history of homosexuality? No, I think niether group of statements is centrally relevant to the issue.
And arguing that homosexuals (and bisexuals) are psychologically different doesn't seem to work, either. Even if we agree on a baseline "normal", aberrations from "normal" will be, dependent on your ethics, be treated with disgust or concern. That is, abnormal sexuality would be considered ok by the same people who would, I'm guessing, consider the abnormality of being a KKK member abominable. Besides which, if homosexuals were thoroughly studied and found to be psychologically abnormal, many people would attribute that victemization by an uncaring society.
Are there any arguments that don't boil down to "I believe it's (right/wrong) because (of my religious beliefs/my non-religious ethical beliefs)?
Seems to me that it will have to play out by quantity of belief. If a majority don't want gay marraige, or do, then that's will happen.
Please point out where I'm wrong or ignorant. (Do I really have to ask you twice? )
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can almost guarantee that this SCOTUS would find that "the right to marry" in those cases refers specifically to "the right to marry someone of the opposite sex."
That is indeed the next logical step for consideration, and the question is working its way through the court system right now.
But you do realize that the above arguments rested on a denial of any such thing as a "right to marry," even for different-sex couples? That is why the discussion of a "right to marry" arose in the first place, as SCOTUS has indeed acknowledged it as a "right" in legal terms, not merely a "privilege."
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not convinced by the arguement that "homosexuals have been around forever", or "these cultures accepted homosexuality".
I don't dispute that. But according to LDS doctrine, there have always been followers of Christ in every human age, and some cultures were made up of nothing but Christians. (E.g., the City of Enoch).
I don't understand your point. The existence of these two groups is not exclusionary -- a diverse society can protect the rights of Christians to worship and gays/lesbians to, well, be gay or lesbian. The point you raise seems to support the opposite position from the one you are arguing.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Please point out where I'm wrong or ignorant.
Because you didn't read my posts. My point is that trying to bring religious history in as some kind of relevance is stupid and ridiculous, because there is plenty of cultures that are not of the same values as current Western Christianity-based culture. And no offense, I don't care what LDS faith believes, unless it is proven and accepted by the historical community, it's a matter of faith, not fact.
And I am not of your faith, but I want to get married. Should I be denied marriage because I'm not Christian? If so, can you defend that argument clearly (if you think you can, I challenge you to start a thread arguing it)? If not, why are you trying to impose a religious value on secular law?
Your ignorance lies in that you refuse to recognize the validity of marriage outside of your faith.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it was a strawman, it wasn't constructed to be so, my apologies.
For one, I do believe that homosexuals should be given the right to "marry" or obtain a legal civil union. There are rights that they are being denied, especially in the areas of next of kin, taxation, inheritance and even the protections given under divorce laws.
What I have a problem with, however, is that I believe this is being fought for in the wrong arena. If change is to happen it must be done at the state level, wherein the laws of marriage already apply. However, those making the news and those reporting it, have decided that in making this a national issue they can bring it to a head quicker. And in such, they've actually muddied the waters.
For change to actually take place, situations as they are in San Francisco will actually have to happen. It will force an issue before the California judiciary and the legislature. That is where this needs to be decided, because the state level is where the rights and responsibilities of marriage are dictated. Property rights, divorce law, spousal benefits are all dictated by the states; on the Federal level, marriage is only a factor in taxation for the most part.
There shouldn't be a Constitutional Ammendment for marriage rights or protections, simply because it is outside of the established realms of the federal government. Let each state hash it out to reflect their own requirements.
As to crossing state lines and whether something retains its legality, there are already long-established rules for that. A quickie divorce in Nevada is valid in the other 49 states, and the marriage of a pair of 16 year olds in South Carolina (not 100% sure still the legal marrying age there) is still legal if they cross the state line.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mind you, the reasoning of the SCOTUS can be challenged, and even the US Constitution can be amended. There are are provisions made for this.
But in order to amend on the basis of rights, one must acknowledge a status of rights separate from law. That is, you cannot critique the legal staus quo without appealling to something outside the legal status quo (such as the status of those marked as slaves being critiqued on grounds of reasons not constrained by law).
So the framers of the US Constitution specifically stated that the Bill of Rights was an acknowledgement of certain rights already existing, rather than a creation of those rights. And legal tradition henceforth (from the SCOTUS on down) rests on this interpretation of legal "rights."
You can use a different interpretation of the term if you choose, but then -- like Humpty Dumpty says -- you really ought to pay it extra.
(Sopwith, I understand. We should pursue this more later. I think there is argument to be made from multiple perspectives coherently, but it needs to be muddled through carefully.)
quote:A quickie divorce in Nevada is valid in the other 49 states...
Don't bet on it. People have gone to jail for bigamy for getting a divorce in another state that was not recognized in the home state. It's true that in general divorce and marriage are recognized across state lines. But please don't oversimplify the situation.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
]![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)
