quote:Yet you are telling the Mormons EVERYWHERE they do not have the right to live in a society they feel comfortable with. If you were throwing a vegan social dinner you are in effect saying "Some new people would like to socialize with us but they can't give up the practice of eating meat but they have the right to be here just as much as any of you do.
Big difference. America is a country of the people, by the people, for the people, not of the Mormons, by the Mormons, for the Mormons.
If I had the power, I'd give LDS the choice between a country where they have to accept that other people have the right to live other than by an LDS lifestyle versus one where the dominant evangelical Christians force the LDS to live according to their version of religion and see which one they felt more uncomfortale in. But I don't, so I just don't have much sympathy when people complain that the same rights and laws that protect them from having someone else's religion forced on them make them uncomfortable that they can't force their religion on others.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I dont care if it makes me look REALLY REALLY bad. The fact you want me to keep my mouth shut about something wonderful most do not understand and to make the world more closed to it makes YOU look really really bad.
Its a faulty example to compare keeping marriage a heterosexual institution and baring the right of people to speak.
Were you to pass laws saying Mormons cannot proselyte you allow for ANYONE or any race, creed, belief to be shut up. It would bring back the Alien Sedetion acts, and the Espionage act of 1917. People would all live in fear and could not in reality live in this country. If homosexuals cannot get married YES there are things they are being denied, but the right to speak their beliefs is certainly not one of them.
You are saying I don't have the right to BAN gay marriage. Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj, But then what is to stop people who have problems with your religion from voicing their opposition (and let me state again that I have no problem with people voicing their opinions on this) and expecting society to be reactive to it? The Baptists and others don't have to accept that your religion is right or even that your marriages are valid, but they do have to accept that they have no right to deny you equal treatment before the law or deny you the legal benefits of being married.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Forcing you to accept it in no way infringes upon any of the rights granted to you by the laws of your country. Whether or not banning it infringes upon the rights granted to others by said laws is the subject of this debate.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You keep using the term "force my beliefs on others" yes I know all about the tyranny of the majority but what are you suggesting? That the majority always difer to the opinions of the minority so as not to offend anybody? Welcome to the tyranny of the minority. Where those in the majority are wrong because they are the majority, and they are expected to check themselves while the minority is allowed to do as it wishes.
Where voting is the same thing as commanding.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But then what is to stop people who have problems with your religion from voicing their opposition (and let me state again that I have no problem with people voicing their opinions on this) and expecting society to be reactive to it?
I understand where this question comes from, but I think it needs to be abstracted from religion because of first amendment issues. Try taking issue with one of my perceived rights that aren't federally protected and I'll try to answer (this isn't intended snarkily; I think it's a good dialogue to have, I just don't think religion can be used as the example with a repeal of the first amendment).
Say, right to procreate. What would stop someone from telling me I had no right to have children with my wife, because of say genetic incompatibility, and expecting the government to be reactive? Is that a good surrogate issue?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Forcing you to accept it in no way infringes upon any of the rights granted to you by the laws of your country. Whether or not banning it infringes upon the rights granted to others by said laws is the subject of this debate.
But they are the same thing. It is being said "you ought not vote to ban something as it forces your views on others" but who brought the SSM debate to the table? So if SSM advocates pass a bill that allows for SSM, I am morally and legally required to abide by it, but if I want SSM advocates to do the same thing with legislation of the polar opposite nature I am in the wrong?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, You misunderstand me. What you said reflects very poorly on you and your position. As someone who opposes you, I don't have a problem with you saying it. I'm glad you said it. However, as a person relating to you as a person, I am hoping that you will look at that statement to see why people are going to find it so objectionable and perhaps learn from this. But I would never ban you from saying it.
You may have missed it, but I am all for a society that will never ban LDS for prostyletizing, even though I myself may not agree with the religion. As I've said, sticking up for the rights of people that you don't necessarily agree with is what it means to be an American, or at least what it should mean.
quote:You are saying I don't have the right to BAN gay marriage. Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
The Enlightenment, the ideals of Liberty and Equality, the Declaration of Independence, but most specifically the 1st and the 14th Ammendments of the U.S. Constituion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Forcing you to accept it in no way infringes upon any of the rights granted to you by the laws of your country. Whether or not banning it infringes upon the rights granted to others by said laws is the subject of this debate.
Neither is denial of SSM infringing on any rights granted to gay couples by the laws of the country (if we're talking about the US outside of MA). Calling SSM a civil right doesn't automatically make it one. If denying it doesn't infringe on rights and granting it doesn't infringe on rights then I don't see how rights come into it.
<edit> A good case of posting too quickly. I didn't read the post carefully and would delete this now if I could.</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well what gave YOU the right force me to accept it?
Forcing you to accept it in no way infringes upon any of the rights granted to you by the laws of your country. Whether or not banning it infringes upon the rights granted to others by said laws is the subject of this debate.
But they are the same thing. It is being said "you ought not vote to ban something as it forces your views on others" but who brought the SSM debate to the table? So if SSM advocates pass a bill that allows for SSM, I am morally and legally required to abide by it, but if I want SSM advocates to do the same thing with legislation of the polar opposite nature I am in the wrong?
No, they are not the same thing. How does being legally required to abide by a law that allows same-sex marriage infringe on your rights?
It doesn't. So that's a non-issue, and beside the point.
The real question is, "does a same-sex marriage ban violate the rights of homosexuals?" If it doesn't, then that's a legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, if it does, then that's a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by odouls268: A marriage is between a man and a woman. Anything else is just a wedding.
Saying this doesn't make it true. The definitions of words are not written in stone. In fact, there are legal homosexual marriages in my country (Canada).
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj, Part of my point is that the same constituational protections that apply to you being free to practice your religion make up a significant part of the reasons why you can't force your religion on others in this way. But okay, I'll still give it a try.
How about we keep it closer to the debate and bring up the perennial attendent issue of interracial marriage? Some religions in America still ban interracical marriage. From what I understand it some flavors of it were implicitly semi-banned in LDS up until the late 70s (what with the Black people can't have the priesthood). However, do you think it would at all legitimate for these people to ban interracial marriages, say if they made up the majority in some city? (I'm obviously ignoring the full faith and credit clause here.)
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm interested to know in what way BlackBlade's life will actually change or even be slightly inconvenienced by having to "abide by" a law that will give my relationship with Chris legal protection.
What legal freedom are you enjoying now that you won't have then?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I originally typed was "A marriage is between a man and a woman, anything else is just a wedding. People want a wedding, I say go for it. It's just pageantry anyway."
But I shortened it to make it more ambiguous: 'Is he serious? Is he not serious?' Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj, the thing is we are both an individual and members of communities, with a stress on the plural. To varying degrees, we identify with different communities, not all of which are completely complementary, nor that we necessarily agree with in toto.
I'm a self-labeled liberal (of the modern sense), but that doesn't mean I agree with the rationales (or even the goals) of every animal-rights/environmentalist/feminist/whatever group might find a home under the same umbrella.
And that's where the delineation of the rights and goals of every community comes in. The US government doesn't presume to act/speak for your god, my god, TomD's FSM. It restricted itself in that regard from the outset. So its definition of marriage cannot, intrinsically, be yours, mine, or Tom's. Our definitions are larger than that. So in a sense, I can see them intertwined, but it's really ultimately at the personal level how they take effect. The community of the USA (or MA, in this case) doesn't usually compel one to agree, in conscience, with any of it's definitions, no matter which part (income tax, drug policy, slavery, etc.). Instead, you can decide that one of your communities definitions no longer applies, while still retaining your other communities' definitions. The most the government is making you do (as a matter of conscience) is to choose whether to continuing using it's definition as a part of yours. But you'll still have your church's (both local and general) and your own personal definitions, and any others you hold.
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The real question is, "does a same-sex marriage ban violate the rights of homosexuals?" If it doesn't, then that's a legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, if it does, then that's a legitimate argument for same-sex marriage.
See, and I'd say the real issue is how to balance the implied right of same-sex couples to marry against the implied right to live in a society BB is comfortable with (using the vegan table analogy).
We talk about absolute rights, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion, but these rights are always balanced against other rights, like guarantee of safety in your persons and possessions. So when the two collide, like say in a human-sacrifice religion, one of the rights loses out. So I think BB's argument is valid in the sense that s/he sees there is a cost, personally and societally, paid in the compromise of other rights, in order to ensure this one. To say the only issue is whether SSM is a right or not is a bit too simplistic, I think.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have the right to pursue happiness, but, for me, happiness would include that 1.8 million dollar mansion with the pillars and gardens over in Lake Brandt Estates. But they won't let me have that thing. I kept waving a copy of the constitution, but they know I can't afford a lawyer or an education, so, oh well.
posted
Must work, must post, must work, must post.
Real quick, probably as a parting shot until tomorrow:
Bok-
Not all communities are equal. The political communities to which we belong have the power to put us in jail, deprive us of our property, and any number of other things. I view them as a special case community, and my responsibility to it and its to me as different than, say, mine to my church. I know there's more to your post, but see above must work sentence.
Squick-
I'll try and write later about IRM (inter-racial marriage) if you want. No time now.
(I'm not making excuses; I just didn't want anyone to feel blown off if I never respond. I'm just getting busy is all).
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I think BB's argument is valid in the sense that s/he sees there is a cost, personally and societally, paid in the compromise of other rights, in order to ensure this one.
That's the thing, though -- I just don't see this cost as significant. Karl's question is apt -- how will BB's life be influenced if Karl marries Chris? The bottom line, for me, is that while it might make BB uncomfortable when he thinks about it, beyond that his life will not be affected in any significant way.
To my mind, if homosexuals are a minority deserving of the same sorts of protections against discrimination as ethnic minorities receive (and here in Canada they are recognized as such), then they are entitled to the same rights as everyone else, including the right to marry. Since the right to a heterosexual marriage is meaningless to a homosexual, legalizing same-sex marriage is the appropriate legal solution.
It goes without saying that freedom of religion must be protected; our federal same-sex marriage law states that no religious institution can be forced to solemnize same-sex marriages. However, civil marriage officers -- being employees of the government -- must issue same-sex marriage licenses.
I think this is the right balance.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No, but the right to equal treatment before the law is.
There's not currently unequal treatment under the law; I'm not allowed to marry a man (well, if I were to live in one of the other 49 states) and neither is anyone else. We are treated equally.
Sorry, I know I said I was busy, but the "equal treatment under the law" masks a deeper argument about the centrality of homosexuality to a person's character. Now, for real, no more posting.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj-- Is the state of MA applying any of those "number of things"? Heck our governor is openly showing contempt for his own state with all that red-state/blue-state nonsense, in front of conservative think-tank audiences.
Of course not all communities are equal... To the individual. And then, to complicate it more both the communities and the individuals are constantly in flux. They DO things. So it's up to the individual to decide what their new level of responsibility is to that community.
But if you intertwine the legal definition with your religious definition, you are already, in part, putting them at the same level. I'm just saying that the choice exists to reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) one's responsibility. Your religion demands, and you agree with it, high responsibility? That's cool. The governments of this nation, however, do not require such a burden, I would posit.
posted
Senoj, The same argument could be made for interracial marriage. That is, there was no unequal treatment as everyone was able to marry within their own race. The inequality comes from there being couples who fulfill the requirements for this legal relationship being denied it on no grounds other than personal and religious prejudice, which is, in our system, invalid.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before the day of interracial marriages in America, did the marriage laws expressly forbid them? Or was it simply taboo?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why? And do you mean civil marriage, religious marriage, or both?
Both. I guess I'm just traditional/old fashioned about this one. I just can't get onboard with homosexual marriages.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some would say "I find it appaling to watch people eat meat", and your response would be "They have no problem with you not eating it, you seem to be the one with the problem. I would say "Well as a guest I am would rather the host not allow people to this social function who are going to eat meat in front of me" Your response would be "That would be infringing on their rights that every man and woman has" and I would finally say "What about my rights to be in an environment I am comfortable with? When did their rights become more important than mine?
To continue this analogy, we are talking about their right to eat vs. your "right" to live in a world where they don't get to eat.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Yet you are telling the Mormons EVERYWHERE they do not have the right to live in a society they feel comfortable with. If you were throwing a vegan social dinner you are in effect saying "Some new people would like to socialize with us but they can't give up the practice of eating meat but they have the right to be here just as much as any of you do. Some would say "I find it appaling to watch people eat meat", and your response would be "They have no problem with you not eating it, you seem to be the one with the problem. I would say "Well as a guest I am would rather the host not allow people to this social function who are going to eat meat in front of me" Your response would be "That would be infringing on their rights that every man and woman has" and I would finally say "What about my rights to be in an environment I am comfortable with? When did their rights become more important than mine?
To continue with this analogy...
I think that the basic principle behind the U.S.A. is that the host (if you accept the host to be the US) is not ALLOWED to throw an exclusively vegan party. A "legal" party would be to allow whoever wanted to to come, and provide a vegan option, and allow the non-vegans to have some milk or a steak if they want one. It is no more appropriate for the vegans to yank the milk-glass away from a meat-eater than it is for the meat-eaters to stuff a pork chop into a vegan's mouth. As long as no one else is harmed by your choice of how you individully (or your group) will eat, you can follow whatever rule you want, but you can't say that another group or person with a different but harmless way of eating is not allowed at the table.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote: So basically for the aesthetics of it, odouls? How do you mean?
The "ick" factor. Do you not like the image in your head when you think about gay sex? That's not a rational, valid reason to deny equal rights. Do you think about your grandparents having sex? I don't. If it bothers you, don't think about it, and make your decision based on what you belive, in a rational, arguable way.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To answer your question with honesty, yes, It bothers me when I would see men kissing in public or what have you. But at the same time, I am also bothered by heterosexual couples making out in public, but in a different way.
I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with people being gay. That's the best I can explain it.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you know, I'm still wondering how the idea that the outside world allowing gay marriages is going to cause the LDS to give up their fidelity to the order of marriage is anything other than an indication that LDS marriages have some serious problems already.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal feelings aren't ground for banning anything. However, if the majority of people in the U.S.A. share my personal feelings, then it IS grounds for banning same sex marriages in the U.S.A.
I don't think the thread is intended to be about political or legal strategy. I think it's more concerned with the moral and religious implications of a scoiety that chooses to allow, even sanction same sex marriages.
It's giving a forum to the argument that most debates on this topic avoid. Think about how many threads and conversations we've all been involved in during which people respond to somehting with "Oh that's just a religious argument, I dont even want to get into that. Without quoting your 'religion' can you give me a decent reason why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry?"
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky: That point I understand -- I certainly don't expect people who oppose same-sex marriage to become staunch advocates of it. But there's a difference between saying "I think this is wrong" and saying "I think this should be banned."
Added: odouls, gimmie a few here to read your post carefully. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't have a problem with irrational people, I just have a problem with people being irrational.
Ok that's it, I've had it with Hatrack, I'm hate everyone and I'm going to go live in a cave forever and lash myself hourly with a wet noodle. My very self worth is shattered and I am now little more than a shell of a man, a breathing corpse!
See? Now THAT sounded irrational. when you put that beside "I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with people being gay" It makes the latter sound like ghandi said it Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the idea of cheeze-whiz on ice cream is disgusting. I think the majority of people in the US would agree. Should we ban it?
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: And you know, I'm still wondering how the idea that the outside world allowing gay marriages is going to cause the LDS to give up their fidelity to the order of marriage is anything other than an indication that LDS marriages have some serious problems already.
Many Many MANY marriages have serious problems already. LDS or otherwise.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the idea of cheeze-whiz on ice cream is disgusting. I think the majority of people in the US would agree. Should we ban it?
I hope not, I kind of like Ice Cream and cheeze whiz. That having been said, If the 'ice cream/cheeze whiz' thing was already not recognized as a legitimate combination, I certainly would not expect society, law, constitution, God and/or country to change suddenly just because me and a few buddies wanted it to.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
It restricted itself in that regard from the outset. So its definition of marriage cannot, intrinsically, be yours, mine, or Tom's. Our definitions are larger than that. So in a sense, I can see them intertwined, but it's really ultimately at the personal level how they take effect. The community of the USA (or MA, in this case) doesn't usually compel one to agree, in conscience, with any of it's definitions, no matter which part (income tax, drug policy, slavery, etc.). Instead, you can decide that one of your communities definitions no longer applies, while still retaining your other communities' definitions. The most the government is making you do (as a matter of conscience) is to choose whether to continuing using it's definition as a part of yours. But you'll still have your church's (both local and general) and your own personal definitions, and any others you hold.
