quote:Don't these extra rights that married couples have come from the idea that marriage is some kind of sacred relationship?
I think a lot of them come from the desire to build a stable community in which to raise healthy children. The goal of mankind is to propagate the species. To do this, you need to have children that survive to have children of their own. Therefore, making things as easy as possible on parents is the goal of society. Nearly all laws are based on the survival of children. Of course you have to realize that when thinking about certain laws. Like taxes. Part of the taxes that everyone pays goes to fund schools for children. If you don't have children, why are you paying for them to go to school? Because education is important in the development of the species. You need to make sure the kids are bright enough to survive. So, having stable relationships in the community is healthy for the children.
Since there are heterosexuals who marry and don't have children and no one sees them as threatening to their religion, why is the union of homosexuals threatening to them? After all, God did say "Go forth and multiply." Obviously, those who marry and can't or won't have children aren't living up to word of God either. And many homosexuals actually want to have children. So, they are in fact, doing more to follow the commandments of God than childless married heterosexuals.
quote: Race is a status protected by the U.S. constitution.
Where? I don't think it is. It is protected by the 1967 Civil Rights Act, but I don't think it is protected by the Constitution, nor even in the so called "Civil Rights" Amendments (13, 14, and 15) (The 14th Amendment was a nice attempt and the 15th Amendment only carries the idea of race being protected as far as voting rights are concerned, though that was countered with State "poll taxes" and "literacy tests.")
I think you might be mistaken about race being protected in the Constitution.
My thoughts as I read Dagonee's thoughts.
The idea that marriage is a sacred religious ceremony that is sanctioned by one's church is interesting. I'm all for that. I also agree that civil marriage is a legal convenience used to grant civil benefits. (So, we agree on something at least. )
So, I got to thinking, if civil marriage is only a tool to grant civil privileges and those religious folks who are married in their churches are special, why do they file for civil benefits? If their church recognizes the validity of their marriage, why do they need non-believers to recognize it? Is it for the benefits? If so, then why do they want to deny others of those same benefits? Obviously, non-believers are being denied the religious benefits of church weddings (and the approval of God and all,) but why deny them the part that has nothing to do with your religion? I mean, if you are granting those same rights to Jews, Islamics, Hindus, etc., it is obviously that your religion is willing to tolerate those of different beliefs. Just as long as they are of a different sex. Religious folks believe their faith is the right faith, and other faiths are wrong, yet don't deny those of different faith simple civil benefits. But when it comes to (some of) these same religious folk, they think that it's alright to deny people civil benefits because they disagree with their faith (I don't remember which faith it is that allows civil unions/marriages.) Why do homosexual civil unions threaten your religion, when civil unions among people of other religions don't? You (only answer this question if you agree with the statement) believe that homosexuality is a sin and if civil unions are given civil benefits, it would be like you are tacitly endorsing it. However, isn't giving civil benefits to Jews, atheists, Hindus, etc. tacitly endorsing them as correct? There can't be more than one correct way, according to some of you. Yet, you are tacitly agreeing to allow others to live differently than you do. Where is that line? How differently can one live before it is too different?
This isn't aimed at anyone in particular. It was just something that occurred to me and blurted it out. I'll have to think about it some more, myself.
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Part of my problem, I suppose, is that I was on the verge of speaking out in favor of ending "church weddings" (not as an official voice, of course), at least in the churches of Christ.
By all the current evidence I am aware of, there was no ecclesiastical marriage in the early church. If a couple were married in the eyes of the state (and met a few very basic qualifications, like being of different sexes), they were married in the eyes of the church as well. Since the churches of Christ are supposed to be an attempt to restore the early church, we have no basis for church weddings--except, of course, that clergy are among the personnel allowed to perform marriages by the state, which ends up being a sort of back-end way for allowing it.
Right about the time I decided to start talking about this on Beliefnet, the Hawaii courts handed down their ruling on civil unions, at which point I realized that letting the state have sole discretion on what constitutes a marriage would be a serious problem. Basically the Massachusetts decision leaves me with an inconsistency in my faith that wasn't there before.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is the element of social acceptability as well. I guess the question is whether gayness is really anti-family. But I don't see how you can be pro-family and not appreciate members of the opposite sex.
It's possible to be heterosexual and also have no respect for the opposite sex. I think it's worse to be promiscuous than to be homosexual.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes -- do I think it would satisfy everyone, or even be the perfect thing to do as far as I'm concerned? No. However, I think it would be a big step in the right direction.
Particularly as the SC has plenty of "separate but equal isn't really equal" precedents .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, those were just my thoughts as I read your post, but yes, I did and do realize that.
Now that you are here though, can you tell me what "the sacrament of marriage as a religious vocation " means?
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that you are here though, can you tell me what "the sacrament of marriage as a religious vocation " means?
In the Catholic Church, marriage is one of 7 sacrements. It is grouped with the sacrement "Holy Orders," which is the sacrement taken by a person becoming a priest or nun.
Both these sacrements are called vocational sacrements, which basically describe ways in which Catholics carry out Christ's command to love. They are seen as equally valuable yet very different ways in which aperson can answer God's call.
This extends to the entirety of marriage and procreation. As my priest delicately put it in one of our marriage preparation meetings, "the marital act is considered a prayer." Couples blessed with children acquire the duty to raise their children well as part of their marriage commitment.
I hope that's clear; I couldn't find a good explanation of the exact point I was trying to make on the net.
posted
the problem is that the basis of the argument against homosexuality is religious-and religious arguments without foundation also in logic, without a basis of religion should not have a place in the legislative process. It's one thing to have a religious belief, and be able to prove it without religion-like it's wrong to kill, which is obviously provable whether or not god exists-but with the homosexuality argument, how do you prove it sinful except through religion?
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I am seeing is "The only reasons against it are religious."
That isn't true. It's just that any other reasons proposed are dismissed because ONE of the reasons is religious.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
katharina -- there are non-religious arguments. But there isn't much supporting evidence behind them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's one thing to have a religious belief, and be able to prove it without religion-like it's wrong to kill, which is obviously provable whether or not god exists
Really? What exactly is this obvious non-religious proof?
posted
Have any non-religious arguments been put forward by people who did not also oppose homosexuality itself by reason of religion?
>> What exactly is this obvious non-religious proof? <<
That since relativism doesn't work, and utilitarianism is the next best thing, then wanton killing, which does not promote much good most of the time, is generally wrong.
posted
I'd say they're less respected and less strongly weighted in the minds of non-religious people, yes.
If someone who didn't already oppose homosexuality itself put forward a non-religious argument against homosexual marriage then I think it would be far more persuasive.
Edit:
In other words, is it possible to think homosexual marriage should be disallowed without also thinking that homosexuality is wrong?
quote:That since relativism doesn't work, and utilitarianism is the next best thing, then wanton killing, which does not promote much good most of the time, is generally wrong.
Being the "next best thing" is no proof of something's validity.
Besides, utilitarianism often DOES justify killing. That's why many people don't like it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I'm not really participating in this one either.
One thing I learned from the pre-marital sex thread was that if I came up with a good argument, I'd just hear "You only believe that because you believe Y, and you believe Y because of X, and all people who believe X are wrong." And every jump, every assumption was wrong.
It was so ignorant and so close-minded on every level that I'm not going to waste my breath.
quote:Twinky, why would a secular argument be less respected because it comes from someone who believes other things as well?
That sounds ... charming.
Sounds a darn sight similar to your insistence that my beliefs on prostitution are only worthwhile for your consideration if I could see myself as a prostitute. Twinky says that he wouldn't respect an attempt at secular reasoning from a person who lives a non-secular life just as you wouldn't respect my attempt at reasoning prostitutes' lives without allowing myself to be a prostitute.
You're both wrong
Perhaps more accurately, it is difficult to separate secular reasoning from non-secular reasons because the secular reasons often come with underlying emotions brought upon by non-secular reasons.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Then yeah, I agree with the topic title. Simply charming.
---------
Sun, I didn't (don't) believe you were serious, and I KNOW that some of the people arguing for your side weren't. I don't like debates where one side is arguing from the heart and the other is goofing off, playing devil's advocate.
posted
Sun, you're misconstruing me -- or applying my statement in a broader sense than it was intended.
Nobody is perfectly objective. If I don't agree with your view that homosexuality is wrong, it's going to influence my view of your arguments against homosexual marriage, even if only on the subconscious level. I can consciously try to mitigate this effect, but the fact is it'll still be there.
Anyone who claims to be objective is a liar, and a bad one at that.
posted
I am 100% serious about my opinions on prostitutes that I stated in that thread. VERY serious. I care very deeply about it, and I was honest when I said that I had spent hundreds of hours researching this topic.
Please apologize for ignoring my resource link, refusing to take my statements as I gave them, and making me feel utterly disrespected by you.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you were serious, then I apologize. It must have very frustrating when I didn't listen. I'm sorry.
----
twink, there HAS to be a difference between an unconcious bias one is fighting, and justifying dismissing arguments out of hand because the source has other arguments as well.
The reason I generally try to stay out of these threads is simple: I don't think that homosexuality and homosexual marriage are any of my business, because I'm heterosexual. Legislation that only affects homosexuals is really none of my affair.
posted
How about a religious argument for allowing homosexual marriage? Would that be dismissed?
God says to love each other.
Christ says to do onto others as you would have done on to you.
Christ says let him without sin cast the first stone.
It is my firm religious belief that God would rather have two people in love dedicated to each other get the full and equal support of our good government than to have strangers campaign to tear thier love torn in two.
This argument is not secularly logical.
It is my belief and my religious outlook.
Any two people in love, dedicated to each other, reaffirms the sanctity of marriage. Any two people who marry for money, or whim, or illusions of what the other can be, or duty to family or church, damages the sanctity of marriage. Barring two people in love from being married is a sin.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, the people who believe homosexuality is wrong and yet still believe homosexuals should have the right to marry -- should their arguments also be discounted?
Oh, and just in case this thread goes the way of other ones like it, if anyone leaves Hatrack over this, please e-mail me and tell me. I'd hate to remain ignorant as long as I have at other times I stopped reading contentious threads. Thanks.
--Pop
[Edit -- Dan beat me to the punch, though the questions aren't identical.]
[ February 09, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Papa Moose ]
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know they CAN be considered separately because I DO consider them separately. One is a matter of what actions are right, and the other is a matter of semantics. So, I think they SHOULD be considered separately.
posted
I think you can consider things separately even if one influences the other.
I also think I can weigh the matter sufficiently objectively that the influence is too small to warrant consideration.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not then? What is so significant about the possibility that one view effects the other that we should not discuss them separately, as if we were objective?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd still like to know why people are so hell bent on passing legislation to make it illegal for homosexuals to marry. What is the reasoning?
Posts: 171 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I tried I could probably sound convincing, however, the arguments themselves aren't very convincing, in that they just aren't backed up by evidence. I can make beautiful theoretical arguments for just about anything, but until there's a hard study that backs it up that's just about meaningless.
And the studies out there generally speaking support the notion that homosexuality isn't harmful.
And Tres: there are lots of ways to invalidate that application of utilitariansism. It all depends on your premises.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
In Canada, visible minorities are legally recognized and are explicitly supposed to have exactly the same rights as everybody else. If you add homosexuals to the list of visible minorities, that means that they have to get the same rights as everyone else.
So. If, say, the people in government oppose homosexuality morally, they will then be less willing to recognize them as a visible minority and as a consequence homosexuals won't be allowed to marry. This is clearly evident in the way the issue is currently being handled by the various provinces within Canada. (Edit: IMO, this is more than enough to say that the two issues are fundamentally related for the purposes of a practical discussion.)
I'm not thinking about this morally, which may be the fundamental difference. I'm thinking about it practically.
Edit:
>> :not participating, not participating, not participating: <<
Scott, I feel like you're getting the impression that my view is a one-way street. It isn't.
quote:I can make beautiful theoretical arguments for just about anything, but until there's a hard study that backs it up that's just about meaningless.
This isn't true, unless all ethical and legal questions are meaningless. You cannot do a hard study of any ethical or legal question because the rightness of something cannot be measured in any "hard" way.
quote:And Tres: there are lots of ways to invalidate that application of utilitariansism. It all depends on your premises.
This is true for any claim about anything. But which premises of mine do you disagree with and why? Because I think you will ultimately agree with them.
Just claiming some premise exists that could be denied to reject my conclusion is true of course, but it's just skirting the question.
posted
>> You cannot do a hard study of any ethical or legal question because the rightness of something cannot be measured in any "hard" way. <<
You could potentially do a study of a legal question. You could compare various factors between contries that allow homosexual marriage and contries that don't, if you could control for other influences well enough.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:twinky said: Are approving/disapproving of homosexuality and supporting/opposing homosexual marriage related?
In other words, can the two things be considered separately?
I don't think they can. You guys seem to think differently.
But you haven't articulated at all why you don't think they can. You've blatantly questioned the objectivity of everyone who disagrees with you and provided no reasoning. No wonder people seem to be a little annoyed about it.
Nor have you taken into account those who think homosexual actions are wrong but that homosexual civil unions should be allowed.
>> In Canada, visible minorities are legally recognized and are explicitly supposed to have exactly the same rights as everybody else. If you add homosexuals to the list of visible minorities, that means that they have to get the same rights as everyone else.
So. If, say, the people in government oppose homosexuality morally, they will then be less willing to recognize them as a visible minority and as a consequence homosexuals won't be allowed to marry. This is clearly evident in the way the issue is currently being handled by the various provinces within Canada. (Edit: IMO, this is more than enough to say that the two issues are fundamentally related for the purposes of a practical discussion.) <<
...which I believe answers your question.
Edit:
Oh, and
>> You've blatantly questioned the objectivity of everyone who disagrees with you and provided no reasoning. No wonder people seem to be a little annoyed about it. <<
I questioned the objectivity of everyone, not just people who disagree with me. Everything I've posted also applies to me, and I've made that quite clear in more than one post.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
