quote: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 completely disagree with this statement. It might be grounds for looking at it, but it is certainly not grounds for actually passing a ban.
quote: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 wasn't at the outset, no. It has changed tone since the opening post -- partly because many same-sex marriage advocates view the legal question as the most immediately relevant one, and partly because it isn't really possible to talk about the potential positive or negative consequences of same-sex marriage without talking about arguments for or against it, since the consequences are often brought up as arguments.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I completely disagree with this statement. It might be grounds for looking at it, but it is certainly not grounds for actually passing a ban.
If the majority of people believe it should be banned, and their representatives desire to accurately represent and/or be reelected by their constituents, then yes, I think it is perfect grounds for banning something in a representative democracy.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the majority of people believe it should be banned, and their representatives desire to accurately represent and/or be reelected by their constituents, then yes, I think it is perfect grounds for banning something in a representative democracy.
That depends entirely on what laws are already in place, though, and on the relative importance of those laws.
Added: What I mean to say is that the majority opinion is not a sufficient condition for a ban.
quote: If the majority of people believe it should be banned, and their representatives desire to accurately represent and/or be reelected by their constituents, then yes, I think it is perfect grounds for banning something in a representative democracy.
SO when a majority thought that slavery was okay that meant that it was okay?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the majority of people believe it should be banned, and their representatives desire to accurately represent and/or be reelected by their constituents, then yes, I think it is perfect grounds for banning something in a representative democracy.
The problem with this is that calling the U.S. represntative democracy is incomplete. We are more correctly a rights-based representative democracy. That is to say, majority rules in many cases, but not in ones where individual rights come into play. For example, you can't vote away someone's right to free speech or his right to due process or (as is relevant in this case) his right to equal treatment before the law.
I said this on this same subject on the other thread:
quote:I think that this is one of the problesm with the "Democracy = Freedom" idea that our country pushes. Democracy, on its own, merely replaces tyranny by the strong with tyranny by the majority. That's why there was and is a great conern with securing individual rights and with developing and adhering to a workable public square epistemology. To actually secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for the individual and for a nation, you need to set aside rights for each person that can't be taken away by the majority and a set of guidelines for what arguments are legitimate for employing government force against the will of some of its citizens. The majority of people in a country can vote for the death of one person or a group of people (like in the Missouri Mormon Extermination Order), but, if the system is working, it would avail them nothing. They, even as a majority or a supermajority, do not have that right.
posted
I was just remarking that to him the idea (not the concrete reality) was ugly to him. I wasn't going to go into whether or not the rationale was valid for the debate.
quote:Is the right to marry protected in the constitution?
quote:No, but the right to equal treatment before the law is.
Actually, the right to marry is protected in the Constitution through current jurisprudence on the due process clause. See Loving v. Virginia for one case that makes this clear (striking down bans on racially mixed marriages not only on equal protection grounds but also on substantive due process grounds).
Unfortunately for gay marriage advocates, the jurisprudence is heavily tied to the "fundamental" nature of a right, which is determined in part (fairly large part) by the history of the right's recognition in Anglo-American legal history. This dedication to the history might just be lip service, but Lawrence diverged heavily in this direction in a negative sense (showing there was no historical expectation that sodomy would be banned). So it seems to be lip service that they are willing to take pretty seriously.
So "marriage" as a fundamental right is likely to be defined as between a man and a woman by the Court.
The current state of equal protection jurisprudence is unlikely to help much either. There are two grounds. One is discrimination in the protection of a fundamental right. If marriage as a fundamental right is restricted to man-woman relationships, this doesn't help. The other ground would be gender discrimination. It's unclear that this would be recognized as gender discrimination by this court. Even if it were, though, the scrutiny it receives is an intermediate level, not a strict level.
One of the rationales underlying Loving was that racial distinctions require strict scrutiny. Since gender distinctions do not, and since the court has repeatedly held that biological reproductive differences can justify unqeual treatment of men and women, I doubt the court would find a federal right to same sex marriage.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I was just remarking that to him the idea (not the concrete reality) was ugly to him. I wasn't going to go into whether or not the rationale was valid for the debate.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SO when a majority thought that slavery was okay that meant that it was okay? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELL NO.
But it did mean that it was allowed by the government.
Yes it was and we agree that it was bad. Right? So can we agree that it is sometimes bad for the government to decide what is legal based merely on majority opinion?
Small steps - or you could just read MrSquicky's posts. He has it well in hand.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, the interesting thing, I believe, is that MA had an equal protection amendment to the state constitution that was much more strongly worded than the federal one's. Have you read Goodridge? Do you agree, that within the bounds of the MA state constitution, they weren't completely off-base?
Just got back from class, (which is why I only had time to snark; sorry about that) and I want a little clarification. What do you mean by
quote: I don't have a problem with gay people, but I do have a problem with people being gay
I seriously don't understand. Do you mean you don't have a problem with gay people as long as they repress and act straight? You like some people who happen to be gay, but you have a problem with homosexuality on principle? Enlighten me.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, in federal U.S. law, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race or gender? From your post it appears that it is not.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I fail to see how the ideals of man-woman marriage don't apply to homosexuals who want to spend the rest of their monogamous lives together, raise a family, etc. etc.
The author is also failing to address the vast number of men and women who fail at marriage, because they don't adhere to those ideals. Allowing gays to marry is not going to break society's traditional marriage ideals- *they're already broken*, which makes this entire essay look like one big excuse. With the author's logic, we should disallow young people, fresh out of highschool, to marry- since chances are they won't stick to those subjective ideals.
Yes, I mean subjective. I'm a fan of the ideals he presented- it makes for one big, happy home. But we cannot deny a group of people the right to marry one another simply because we "don't think they'll hold our values dear." (Emphasis on the word "think." There is no evidence that gay marriage will be more or less moral than the average heterosexual union.)
As for explaining the differences of men and women- the qualities they posess that allow them to come together like yin and yang- many gay people do not adhere to the traditional gender roles set forth by society. A gay man may adopt a personality and behavior similar to a woman's because it fits him. But that's beside the point- unlike the author, we shouldn't insist on traditional gender roles to strengthen marriage. Part of the reason why marriage is crumbling is because women and men aren't subjected to the same strict gender boundaries they were in the 1950's. Unless he's implying we should go back to where men had the full financial burden and women stayed home with the kids and cleaned... in that case, he does appear to be ignorant.
Then he speaks of "transformation," which makes his entire essay sound incredibly hypocritical. The fact that two people, in our progressive society, can be liberated of duties pertaining to their gender, and can still come together and live up to those marriage ideals, is transformation at it's most amazing!!
What I'm reading here is someone who is putting an intellectual slant (he's speaking more eloquently) on why he doesn't believe gays should marry. But the arguments are all the same, and they never don't add up. Yes, we will lose a tradition if we allow gay marriage- but that tradition is already being lost, and for reasons both good and bad. (Like I mentioned before, men and women are no longer subjecting themselves to gender roles that stifle their choices.) While the gay community certainly has a role in this, unless you're a fundamentalist then there is no problem. Actually, the fact that gays WANT to engage in a traditional marriage with one another, one that the author considers moral and good, should be embraced and accepted.
No, the reason the author has a problem with it is because God says being gay is a sin. He should just 'fess up now.
quote: I seriously don't understand. Do you mean you don't have a problem with gay people as long as they repress and act straight?
Not at all. You brought up the "ick" factor. I guess that's got something to do with it. If I'm spending time with someone, and they're gay, I usually completely forget the fact that they are gay. Until they kiss their same-sex partner. Then the "ick" factor kicks in and reminds that there is a part of their choices that I disapprove of. When the one is not present, neither is the other, and I yet again forget that they are gay.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well ,the essay IS one big excuse. The author admits to be bolstering the defenses, not criticizing the opponents.
twinky; no, sexual orientation is not enumerated in the US constitution as an explicit equal protection category. Considering it hasn't been amended in ages (60s, right?), it isn't too surprising that sexual orientation didn't make the list. We were still electroshocking a lot of gays into straighthood back then.
quote:Dagonee, in federal U.S. law, is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation equivalent to discrimination on the basis of race or gender? From your post it appears that it is not.
No, it is not. For example, it is constitutional to have statutory rape laws that are different for male and female minors. It would be absolutely unconsititonal to base punishemnt on race.
In technical terms, any racial classification in law receives strict scrutiny, any gender classification receives intermediate scrutiny.
posted
"I usually completely forget the fact that they are gay. Until they kiss their same-sex partner. Then the "ick" factor kicks in and reminds that there is a part of their choices that I disapprove of."
So what you're saying is that you only mind gay people when they don't pretend they're straight. That's what I'm hearing.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, in the 1960s we were imprisoning homosexuals here in Canada, but in 1996 the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to include sexual orientation:
quote:For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.
posted
I just realized I misread your question, twinky.
Racial classification is treated with more suspicion than gender classification.
As of now, a classification on sexual orientation is not inherently suspect, which means it must pass what is called "rational basis" analysis: is it reasonably related to a legitimate end of government.
That's assuming we're not talking about a fundamental right such as free speech. A law banning gay pride parades would be subject to strict scrutiny not based on sexual orientation but on the exercise of a fundamental right.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow. I really don't get the 'ick' factor at all. I'm a straight woman, a happy, life-long monogamist at this point, and I don't see it. I think I'd be a little bit put off if any of my friends started making out in front of me, but a chaste smooch or sitting close or whatever... no. Not even if they were a gay couple.
But then, I'm probably as close to being a gay man as a straight woman can get *snort* I mean, I totally understand what it is like to be attracted to men, and there is very little that homosexuals do in bed that heterosexuals don't do, too. I can't think of anything, actually.
I don't think the "ick" factor exists in my personal reality, outside of underage or non-consentual issues, neither of which is gay/straight specific.
This is an interesting discussion. It brings new meaning to the phrase, "Same planet, different worlds."
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just realized I misread your question, twinky.
Well, yes and no. You didn't answer the question I meant to ask, but at the same time your answer was useful. I hadn't been thinking about the multiple meanings of "discriminate." Thanks for the supplementary answer.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: There's also the difference that in baptism for the dead, you are doing it to the people who are bothered by it, whereas gay marriage you're bothered because other people are doing something which doesn't directly affect you.
quote:We are working on all of the other things that are attacking the institution of marriage.
I'm gonna call shenanigans on this. The vast majority of the "Defense of Marriage" movement is not only solely focued on anti-gay stuff, but is being carried out by religious groups that have around the highest divorce and spousal and child abuse rates in the country edit: as per ratings on religious status). Even if gay marriage were a threat to marriage, which I haven't seen anyone offer an actual tenable case for or predictions of how it would destroy marriage, it is hardly anywhere near the biggest threat. And yet it has by far the most energy expended on it.
quote:On our side, we believe that same-sex marriage ... will lead to the tribulations prophesied of in the scriptures. As we really do believe that, all of these changes are very alarming.
You may believe that, but I've get the feeling from the many conversations that I've had with people on this board that most of your co-religionists here would not agree with you.
Wow, I go home from school and three pages pop up.
I'm not referring to DOMA when I'm referring to supporting marriage, but rather the LDS Church.
While some of my co-religionists may not agree with me, that was a paraphrase from the Declaration on the Family, straight from the leaders of our church.
I don't really see anything in this article that is meant to convince people outside of the Church.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The vast majority of the "Defense of Marriage" movement is not only solely focued on anti-gay stuff, but is being carried out by religious groups that have around the highest divorce and spousal and child abuse rates in the country edit: as per ratings on religious status)
Where is this information compiled?
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: Well ,the essay IS one big excuse. The author admits to be bolstering the defenses, not criticizing the opponents.
It's an excuse to be against gay marriage when really, he just views homosexuality as a sin. But that's never a good argument, is it?
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mariann, that's not the point of the article. I don't think, as outsiders, when the thread didn't really invite it, that it's wise to get rabid. No one was really asking to refute it. I admit to posting my problems with it, and I think I've learned a little more about people who think differently.
That's the most fruitful result one can take from just about any Hatrack discussion.
posted
tern, may I suggest putting this question at www.nauvoo.com if you want for mostly mormons to answer. As you can see, you aren't going to get that group answering around here. MOST of the mostly are not LDS who are answering.
I lost interest as soon as it became a legal rather than religious question. I lost all interest as soon as it was 60 percent non-Mormons who were mostly pro-gay.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: tern, may I suggest putting this question at www.nauvoo.com if you want for mostly mormons to answer.
Don't do this if you aren't a Mormon yourself, however, as posting as a non-Mormon specifically violates the TOS over there.
BTW, Occasional, what makes a thread more interesting when you agree with it? Me, I tend to go the exact opposite way; I get much less interested in a thread when everyone in it agrees with me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a Mormon, but I didn't post this question...I'm just replying.
I rather doubt that this thread or that article will change anyone's minds. Pretty much every thread about SSM is pretty much the same, those against it saying that it will destroy the fabric of society, etc, those for it saying that we're homophobes, etc. However, I did appreciate the posting of the link to that article, seeing as I'm in the choir, it's nice to see some good music as opposed to the JKP junk that we're usually given to sing.
Has there ever been a thread on Hatrack about Mormon composers with three names and how they should never be allowed to put pen to paper?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think folks that are against gay marriage are being homophobic just... afraid of too much of a radical shift and of what they value being taken for granted and folks being too casual about it. But, I can't help thinking that the gays who work for gay marriage will try to value their vows and connects as much as concerned straight people. Then you have gays who dislike the concept of gay marriage for their own complicated reasons. Rebeliousness? The desire to not be like straight people? I think it should be allowed, but I cannot find a clear and convincing argument that will sooth those that disagree with gay marriage on both sides.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
What's odd is that this thread seems to specifically refute the very claim you make. Has anyone called anyone else homophobic on this thread?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I put the "etc"...but I was referring to the sum total of all threads about SSM/homosexual behavior. There have been different arguments on both sides...but for some reason, even if a minority uses it, that's the one that tends to stick in the memory.
JKP = Janice Kapp Perry.
Edited for clarity.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it might be something like that, but I'm working to change the perception of the pro-SSM camp. The primary argument for SSM is not that people who oppose SSM are homophobes; arguments against a position's opposition are not arguments for the position. (In fact, I often find that people have a tendency, when asked to list the other side's arguments, to list negative, ad hominem arguments of exactly this sort instead of positive arguments for the opposing position itself. Part of it is probably that these ad hominems, precisely because they're insulting, are better remembered by their targets -- and part of it is that people who understand the positive arguments for a position are more likely to actually endorse that position.)
I think a better restatement of the positive arguments for each side would be as follows:
Anti-SSM: it would destroy the fabric of society by undermining the family unit and angering God Pro-SSM: it would grant social respectability and legal protections to homosexual relationships
And when you put it that way, you realize that the two sides actually AGREE. It's just that the anti-SSM crowd believes that granting social respectability to homosexuality would destroy the fabric of society. And that's something worth having a conversation about, IMO.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was actually considering tackling this more from a religious perspective, but I hadn't had time to read the piece thoroughly until now. But Occ's no doubt waiting breathlessly for what I have to say from this angle, so I won't keep him waiting any longer.
One of the stereotypes that seems to be pushed by a lot of people in the anti-gay marriage camp is that the pro-gay marriage people don't value marriage or families. This is not true for the majority of people that I know. Certainly it isn't true for myself.
So, I found myself agreeing with a lot of what was said in the first half of that piece. For example:
quote:the variant versions of the traditional married way of life share the same core elements. These elements have to do with lifelong commitment, mutual trust, sexual fidelity, collaborative rearing of children, and the selflessness and sacrifices required in order to live up to the expectations of the traditional married way of life.
and
quote:But the ideals of traditional marriage that I just listed are elevating and ennobling, and meant to lift the marriage partners above the often petty and self-protective ways of ordinary life.
I also agree with the idea that a commitment to this way of life should go along with the legal institution.
I mostly agree with the four points that the author lists as the basis for marriage.
Traditional marriage is rooted in a covenant made with God, or in good conscience.
The traditional marriage partners covenant to become as one.
It is with one’s natural complement that the covenant is made.
The covenant includes rearing a posterity together.
I don't actually accept the raising of posterity as a necessary basis for marriage, but I do agree that it is very important as to the basis of marriage nonetheless. And I agree with the idea that one of the highest callings of marriage is to rear children collaboratively in such as way that the parents' unity and commitement will become a model for their children to aspire to.
I'm all over part 3. Like a Temple in the Profane World. The family as a stable, working, healthy thing is so precious and necessary for a working society. I'd quote almost that whole section as stuff I agree with if I weren't concerned about copyright.
And then my agreement breaks down. If you were following the piece closely, you will have already noticed the lines of fracture contained in the parts I left out of what I agreed with.
One of the cornerstone assumptions of this piece seems to be the assertion that one's sex is the most determining, fundamental aspect of who you are and that only true completeness someone can have is with someone of the opposite sex. While I could see this making sense to someone coming from a strongly sex-typed culture like LDS, I don't think this holds up in a world where people aren't actively working to make it true. I'm not going to deny that the distribution of traits and ways of thinking are distributed in different proportions across the sexes, but I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with personality traits or ways of thinking that could be classified as exclusively male or female. Certainly I don't think you'd be able to come up with anywhere near enough such that you could claim that this difference towers over all others.
I'm an engineer. I think more similarly to engineers, male or female, than I do to say Art History people, male of female. I'm also a social scientist. The pool of people who are both engineers and social scientists is remarkably small (the Psych GRE is taken by 78% women, 22% men, the only GRE with a higher differential is Comp Sci which is 80% men and 20% women. I do both.) and I find I think most like these rare people who combine the stereotypical "male" traits of engineers and the stereotypical "female" traits of social scientists. Not suprisingly, I know both men and women who are like this. When I went to Penn, I felt out of place because, unlike most of the people there, I came from a blue collar, city background. The two people on my hall I was closest to because we felt most comfortable with each other where two girls from the same environment. I could go on and on, but I think people get the point. In my life, I've found that, yes, there are differences between the sexes, but that these differences are often much less significant than other ones. And I've been described (by a gay friend) as "umistakably straight from 100 yards away.", which I chose to take as a compliment.
I have close gay friends (unlike, I'm willing to bet, the author of this piece). One of the things that I was initially struck by, back when I was fresh out of Catholic high school was how similar our bitching about relationships sound like. I don't see where there's this huge difference between their relationships and mine. We have certainly been able to trade useful advice back and forth.
The ones whose "weddings" I've danced at are devoted to their partners and I've had no reason to doubt their intentions towards "lifelong commitment, mutual trust, sexual fidelity, collaborative rearing of children, and ... selflessness and sacrifices". The one couple that has a beautiful, healthy little girl seem no less into their family than say my adopted friends' parents or my natural parents for that matter. Again, I don't see this apparently obvious and enormous difference. What I do see is pairings of people who are creating, through trial and error, through blending their complementary personalities and strengths and weaknesses, into beautiful things, into "Temples in the Profane World". Like all marriages, especially ones just starting out, they are both precious and fragile and I try to support them as best I can. I don't see how tearing them down helps anyone. Another obvious thing I must be missing.
And let's be clear. Gay marriage is their only shot at a marriage type relationship. It's not like they had a choice between two options. The ex-gay movements only "successes" come from Clockwork Oranging people into some pretty messed up individuals, who are then passed off onto the volunteer husbands and wives who signed up to marry whoever came out the other side of the "therapy" without committing suicide and still basically functional. That doesn't seem like respecting marriage to me, but I must be missing it.
You're not increasing heterosexual marriage by banning gay marriage. You're just making it harder for them and spitting on their selflessness and sacrifices. The realistic alternative you're offering them to their unions where they are growing up and growing together, where they are finding joy and fulfillment, where they're are doing their best to build loving, working families is life alone. No partners, no completion, no families. To me, that's diminshing the things that are right in this world, not increasing them. It's seems to be tearing down marriages and families, not protecting them. But I guess that's another obvious thing I'm missing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
What is wrong with Janice? What if a relative of hers was on this forum? I've actually *chosen* to sing some of it. But I usually don't choose it. Seriously, I know what you mean. But I wouldn't call her music junk. I don't know what I would call it.
posted
Incidently, are there anti-gay marriage essays that aren't terribly disrespectful to parents of adopted children?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How come I never seem to see them posted here?
edit: I mean this one goes out of its way to take a swipe at them. They show up pretty quickly under the Apostasy of Marriage section.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't say that proponents of SSM don't value marriage or families. Well, actually, considering that I consider marriage to be between a man and a woman, I suppose it would be accurate to say that the "marriage" that they value isn't the traditional definition of marriage.
That being said, I don't think that the push for gay marriage has as much to do with whether or not they value marriage or families as it does with a desire to have society legitimize their actions. That's my core problem with their motivations, because I believe that they are misguided. Things are right or wrong regardless of whether or not society legitimizes them, and happiness does not come from having society legitimize their behavior.
So while I truly do believe that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society, I think that those who want to enter into it are doing it out of misguided beliefs.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I really don't get the 'ick' factor at all. I'm a straight woman, a happy, life-long monogamist at this point, and I don't see it. I think I'd be a little bit put off if any of my friends started making out in front of me, but a chaste smooch or sitting close or whatever... no. Not even if they were a gay couple.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
