quote: It bugs me a little that gay-related topics get discussed in such theoretical and clinical terms on this board as if it were an academic game when to some of us on the forum these questions shape our daily lives. I think that is forgotten quite a bit around here.
And thank you, KarlEd, for being one of the ones to remind us of this very important fact. If we forget it, we are making a grave error.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's easy to say that "gays are furthering the collapse of the family" (or society or whatever) but harder for some people to say "Karl is furthering the collapse of the family". But to me they are the same contention.
I think that part of the disconnect you are seeing, for some people, doesn't all from the attitude "oh, you're not like those other homosexuals, Karl". I think some of it stems from people's reluctance to be too direct/rude about you and your life.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is probably true, MPH. I know, though, that people on this board can be direct without being rude, and I hope they know that I can address a direct arguement without being rude or overly sensitive in return.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Firstly, I don't agree with you that a convincing argument can be made that fundamentally changing the way society approaches (particularly in the legal sense) marriage, adoption and education amounts to nothing more that letting people get on with their lives affecting no-one."
Why not? How does letting Karl get married affect heterosexuals getting married?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing from my point of view. I keep hearing, both here and other places, this fear that the government will somehow force churches to wed people they do not desire. You would have to look at some real militant radicals to find anyone saying that, I think. As a person a year out from an interfaith marriage, I know the difficulty in getting religious officiants (only 6 rabbis in MA will co-officiate without requiring you to promise that the children be raised as Jews). The state certainly isn't making people co-officiate such marriages against their will, even though me and my fiancee certainly pass all legal requirements for marriage. Similarly, I'm sure there are religious officiants that still refuse to officiate inter-racial weddings, and I haven't heard any lawsuits of that sort.
So I don't see how someone can justify this specific fear. I can understand, however, the fears of changes in sex ed and other such programs (even if I'm fine with it myself).
quote: I keep hearing, both here and other places, this fear that the government will somehow force churches to wed people they do not desire.
Really? I have never heard this fear before, at least not on Hatrack. This would be an amazingly radical change, one that I don't see happening because of accepting homosexual marriage but because of the government *really* stepping on toes they have no right to be stepping on. I don't feel threatened by this possibility because I don't see it happening.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree. I've seen a lot of people say that there is nothing to worry about with that (the government forcing churches to peform gay weddings), but I've never seen anybody actually concerend about it. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've read it at least 3-4 times (including enjeeo's concern) here in the last 3 months. I've read similar sentiment elsewhere. It isn't the most common type of objection, but it shows up, and from my side of the fence on this issue, it seems rather paranoid, and I wonder how many others feel the same way, but don't articulate this point because they intellectually realize it is flimsy (I won't say wrong, because humanity has a way of surprising certain individual members of the family ), but still think it.
quote: I agree. I've seen a lot of people say that there is nothing to worry about with that (the government forcing churches to peform gay weddings), but I've never seen anybody actually concerend about it.
I am actually concerned about it. Here is how the scenario could possibly play out: Homosexuals receive protected minority status Anti-discriminatory laws are put into effect (hate crimes, hiring practices etc). Law suits are brought to bear resulting in requiring churches to treat homosexuals equally or lose their tax exempt status.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Huh. I'm an opponent of gay marriage, for mostly relious reasons. But I have no fears that my church will be forced to do anything it doesn't want to.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't see it mentioned by enjeeo, and perhaps other mentions were much more vague than the specific statement you made and I didn't notice them. I also wonder, then, if people fear this.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Does anybody know if a religion can be blatantly racist (i.e., only people of _______ race can be in our church) and still qualify for tax-excempt status in the U.S.?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: For the record my stance on homosexuality is that gays should have exactly the same civil rights as everyone else, but that churches (as voluntary organisations that people choose to be members of) should retain the right to follow their doctrine (eg not being legally bound to recognise same sex marriages just as they are not legally bound to recognise de facto marriages). I want my friends to have the security of knowing that they can visit their partner in hospital (even if it's family only), or not have to go to court if their partner dies to retain custody of kids they have raised who happen to be biologically their partner's. These are things that they should not have to worry about.
The bolded section (my emphasis) seems to imply that she is worried about it, or else why bring it up explicitly as her stance, when Karl said the same thing, except didn't explicitly state this, though he used the term "legal" in reference to marriage.
quote: Law suits are brought to bear resulting in requiring churches to treat homosexuals equally or lose their tax exempt status.
I think the LDS church would relinquish tax exempt status before changing their policy. And some churches would put up such an uproar... it would get pretty ugly.
Might as well have people bring law suits against the LDS church for not allowing them to marry in the temple just because they want it even if they don't meet the requirements.
Seems a bit far fetched to me.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't read it that way at all, Bok. I read it as "I think A should happen, but not B." I do not read anywhere "I am worried that others might try to make B happen."
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are quite a few sects/cults out there, but I don't know if they have been recognized as official religions, and they usually get entangled with law enforcement due to actually trying to carry out their racist beliefs (burning houses and the like).
posted
mph, but why introduce it, if no one has broached it prior? It seems that she would actually have to be worried/care about it, if she was willing to state it explicitly.
quote:Does anybody know if a religion can be blatantly racist (i.e., only people of _______ race can be in our church) and still qualify for tax-excempt status in the U.S.?
Because the LDS church did not ordain males of African descent to the priesthood, the IRS threatened to revoke the church's tax-exempt status.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are quite a few sects/cults out there, but I don't know if they have been recognized as official religions, and they usually get entangled with law enforcement due to actually trying to carry out their racist beliefs (burning houses and the like).
But burning down houses is a crime. Having requirements to be fulfilled for marriage in a specific religion isn't. And if it became a crime... Jiminy Cricket, this country will have become pretty messed up.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think the LDS church would relinquish tax exempt status before changing their policy. And some churches would put up such an uproar... it would get pretty ugly.
Of course it would, but that doesn't mean that losing tax-exempt status wouldn't hurt.
quote: Seems a bit far fetched to me.
Given recent decisions in our countries courts I don't think it is the least bit far-fetched.
Most likely the courts will hand down a decision and it will require a lengthy and turbulent legislative process to overturn the court mandated change. In Utah it is pretty likely that the State would pass constitutional amendments and suits would be filed bringing the matter before the supreme court. Who knows what might happen then?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because the LDS church did not ordain males of African descent to the priesthood, the IRS threatened to revoke the church's tax-exempt status.
Do you have a source for this? Not that I'm doubting you, per se, but I've never heard this. Interesting information, though.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That it was stated on that other page without references really is no more convincing than having it posted here with not references.
I'm highly skeptical.
Yeah, it is probably good to be skeptical of info from unofficial web sources. I am in the process of trying to find official sources now.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To back up Bok, I also remember seeing people insist that one major objection was this loss-of-church-rights concern. I even think there was a thread where the topic post was asking why people thought this wouldn't happen. I think they were convinced through the responses that the concern was unwarranted, but they were initially quite worried.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, after a search through pertinent congressional and IRS documentation, all I have been able to discover is that the IRS has pretty broad powers to declare an organization a church or revoke its declaration. This is from IRS publication 557 on determining whether an organization qualifies for tax-exempt status:
In determining whether an admittedly religious organization is also a church, the IRS does not accept any and every assertion that the organization is a church. Because beliefs and practices vary so widely, there is no single definition of the word church for tax purposes. The IRS considers the facts and circumstances of each organization applying for church status.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: "Firstly, I don't agree with you that a convincing argument can be made that fundamentally changing the way society approaches (particularly in the legal sense) marriage, adoption and education amounts to nothing more that letting people get on with their lives affecting no-one."
Why not? How does letting Karl get married affect heterosexuals getting married?
I wasn’t being that simplistic. It affects society as a whole. It means changes to many kinds of law – tax, employment, immigration law, etc. It changes procedures. It will eventually change the media, advertising, etc.
quote: I get that alot from my friends too... makes me sad.
Yeah Telperion. I’d be pretty sad if my friends kept calling me Karl, too. I mean, they’re your friends – surely they should know your name, huh?
quote: The bolded section (my emphasis) seems to imply that she is worried about it, or else why bring it up explicitly as her stance
Bok
No, not really. All I was really saying is that I support the separation of church and state, but I was stating it in a way that was specific to the topic at hand. It’s not something I worry about, it’s just something I have already considered in relation to these issues, in discussions long past, so it kind of emerged automatically as I was typing.
posted
Ironically for your little joke enjeeo, Telperion's real name happens to be Karl as well. IIRC.
quote:I wasn’t being that simplistic. It affects society as a whole. It means changes to many kinds of law – tax, employment, immigration law, etc. It changes procedures. It will eventually change the media, advertising, etc.
All the changes you foresee amounts to an increased accommodation of homosexuals in every aspect of society. Yet you dismissed Karl's observation on the last page that the whole argument could be boiled down to that the changes would diminish the stigma gays currently endure. It is still not clear to me how this would in any significant way affect how I, as an heterosexual, go on enjoying the rights and priviledges afforded me by society.
Maybe it's not fair to harp on you for an explanation here since we are in agreement that homosexuals should enjoy the exact same legal rights as anyone else (from which I infere that you personally don't feel that this would have any disastrous effects on heterosexuals or society at large). However, you seem to have made yourself spokesperson for an argument most often used to caution against change: "giving group X access to rights YZ will have large but mostly unspecified effects on society as a whole, thus I'm justified to express my hesitation". Whenever this argument is used against a change that I believe is to be implemented to correct an injustice, I feel it is the responsibility of its proponents to explain in concrete terms exactly what these effects are likely to entail and to demonstrate how they could conceivably be harmful. Failure to do so makes it impossible to expose fears built solely on unfounded prejudices as well as finding ways of addressing the legitimate concerns that may very well exist.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why not? How does letting Karl get married affect heterosexuals getting married?
How does it hurt me if my spouse decides to have sex with other people? (this isn't a trap, as far as I know my spouse has made no such decision, therefore feel free to speculate hypothetically).
I confess to being guilty of the church-persecution paranoia in the past, though it was like October last time I recall discussing it.
We view it as a tragedy in our society when a couple cannot have children that are naturally related to both of them. In a homosexual union, every family will be a "blended family". Supposing that gays will have the same rate of divorce as heterosexuals, I think this will result in more insecurity for at least one member of a family. For the non-biological parent, or if both parents contribute children, for the children to know they won't stay together in a divorce scenario.
That is why like Card I feel divorce rates need to go down before there is talk of expanding the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians. I reserve judgement as to whether gays and lesbians are able to provide the intrinsic devotion it takes to make a family. But in terms of the extrinsic structural elements, they have a strike against them as do heterosexual blended families. But I've thought for a long time, independently, that it would be a great ideal to prevent remarriage of divorced people. It's a principle I would abide by, even if my marriage ended through no fault of my own.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think that the unions that you're describing are occurring, regardless if they're receiving protection under the law or not.
The example that you're describing, the issue of custody when a same-sex union fails, is indeed a thorny one. My understanding is that as it stands now, because the law only recognizes "marriage" as a legitimate union, custody laws are essentially useless for resolving issues during these situations. In my mind, this is a resounding argument to get away from using "marriage" as the term for a union of people protected under the law.
quote: Tom:Why not? How does letting Karl get married affect heterosexuals getting married?
pook: How does it hurt me if my spouse decides to have sex with other people?
What??? Your spouse is waiting for me to marry chris so she can sleep with other people?? Tell her I said I appreciate the sacrifice, but she doesn't have to wait.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is still not clear to me how this would in any significant way affect how I, as an heterosexual, go on enjoying the rights and priviledges afforded me by society.
As I just said, I wasn't being that simplistic. I wasn't trying to say that the expanding of Joe Homosexual's right impinges on Jack Hetero's rights. I was saying that it will fundamentally change the society we live in. Let's go the other way with this. Let's say that you as a guy (your nick is a boy's name, so sorry if the assumption is wrong) go to live in a country where the rights of women are severely curtailed relative to what you are used to. That won't affects your rights as a man at all. But does that mean that you will therefore be unaffected by living in such a society? The indirect effects of the rights we extend or do not extend to parts of our society can be just as profound as the direct effects, albeit in different ways.
quote: However, you seem to have made yourself spokesperson for an argument most often used to caution against change: "giving group X access to rights YZ will have large but mostly unspecified effects on society as a whole, thus I'm justified to express my hesitation".
Okay, what is this the fourth post in a row where I'm defending myself against things I didn't say? It's getting tired now. I have NOT made myself a spokesperson for any viewpoint, least of all that one. I have not tried to justify hesitation, or actually any particular course of action. I just said that in an honest realistic discussion of these issues you should acknowledge that there are some fundamental changes on the table, instead of trying to make it sound like this is all a storm in a teacup. Even good change is stressful, confusing, sometimes requires a paradigm shift. I'm not cautioning against change. I'm cautioning against the attitude that we shouldn't question change because the change in question happens to be considered PC right now. These ARE big changes. Let people feel like their society is being fundamentally changed - because it IS. Even if you are adding, 'but it's a good thing. Let me explain how.'
Posts: 2451 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That is why like Card I feel divorce rates need to go down before there is talk of expanding the definition of marriage to include gays and lesbians.
So gays shouldn't enjoy the legal protections of marriage until straights get it right? This is the biggest hypocrisy of the whole gay-marriage arguement. Why is it even remotely just to hold gays to a higher standard than straights hold themselves? So what if the same percentage of unions fail among gays as straights? So what if some children might be hurt in the breakup? Is it necessary that someone demonstrate that no children will ever be inconvenienced before two gay people will be allowed to form a legal union? Why not make straight people demonstrate that they have such foresight and incredible parenting prowess before issuing them a marriage license? And how do you justify perpetuating the insecurity of a child with two lesbian parents now who can't get a legal union because if you gave them a legal union it might not last and thus scar the child?? Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I apologize if you feel I have misrepresented your position. I assure you that it was never my intention. Note however that I never said that YOU were using that particular argument to justify hesition, or anything at all, really. Just that -- in my experience of course -- this would be the most common motivation (at least in discussion such as these) for using an argument of this kind.
You restate your position as:
quote: I just said that in an honest realistic discussion of these issues you should acknowledge that there are some fundamental changes on the table, instead of trying to make it sound like this is all a storm in a teacup
and you also said:
quote:[t]he indirect effects of the rights we extend or do not extend to parts of our society can be just as profound as the direct effects, albeit in different ways.
I don't necessarily disagree with anything of this. All that I'M saying is that, in order to productively discuss these thing and to gain a better understanding of what the opposing camp REALLY means, we need spell out exactly what these "fundamental changes" are as well as listing any "indirect effects" and examine their causation. It may be intuitively obvious that a society which allows women to vote is different from one that does not, but in order to convincingly argue that it is preferable (or rather that it isn't, since I place the burden of proof on the side wanting to restrict rights) we need to show exactly how and why it differs.
quote: It may be intuitively obvious that a society which allows women to vote is different from one that does not, but in order to convincingly argue that it is preferable (or rather that it isn't, since I place the burden of proof on the side wanting to restrict rights) we need to show exactly how and why it differs.
I wonder what rights you think are being restricted.
Can homosexuals live together? Yes. Can homosexuals inherit from each other? Yes. Can homosexuals become a legal guardian of their significant other's children? Yes. Hospital visitation rights? Yes. etc.
So what rights are being restricted
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't want to get into a discussion about rights and priviledges since I in this case consider the distinction largely irrelevant. Do you dispute that the legal situation for a heterosexual couple differs from that of a homosexual couple?
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: don't want to get into a discussion about rights and priviledges since I in this case consider the distinction largely irrelevant. Do you dispute that the legal situation for a heterosexual couple differs from that of a homosexual couple?
What I am saying is that a homosexual couple can obtain the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. Isn't that what the whole debate is about?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if this were true in all cases, which I don't think it is (adoption, visiting rights?), true legal equality would not exist until it were obtainable with as little fuss and effort as it is for heterosexual couples.
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Even if this were true in all cases, which I don't think it is (adoption, visiting rights?), true legal equality would not exist until it were obtainable with as little fuss and effort as it is for heterosexual couples.
So if this is the pressing need why not focus energy on streamlining the processes for things like that?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But why create separate institutions for gays when there already exist perfectly fine legal constructs that only need to be slightly ammended to accomodate gay couples to ensure them equal rights (and privileges) with heterosexuals in one big swoop?
quote: But why create separate institutions for gays when there already exists perfectly fine legal constructs that only needs to be slightly ammended to accomodate gay couples to ensure them equal rights (and privileges) as heterosexuals in one big swoop?
Why redefine the basic foundational unit of society for all of recorded history when there is no need to do so?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do you think the same-sex marriage supporters are doing Jacare? Why "reinvent the wheel" when you know where a Ferrari dealership is?
Legal marriage is the streamlined process, why add separate laws to the books when an existing system is in place?
(I suppose I know some of the answers to this, largely dealing with the issue of redefining marriage, even though it is legal marriage, not religious.)
posted
For the record, legal marriage is a rather late-comer to the "marriage" industry (at least our legal definition is). So I don't think we're redefining anything that hasn't already been redefined before.
posted
Oh, and I'd say the basic foundational unit of society is an individual. Families may be the basic units of larger societies, but without individuals, there isn't a family in and of itself.
posted
Also, I'd say the extended family all living together/in walking distance has been the basic foundational unit of society for far longer than marriage considered as the union of two. Yet society broke that up as a near-universal practice a decent bit ago.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why redefine the basic foundational unit of society for all of recorded history when there is no need to do so?
Marriage is between one man and one woman. Marriage is between one man and as many women as he can support. Marriage is between one man and his dead brother's wife, as required by God. Marriage is between one man and one woman, and her female slave. Marriage is between one man, a few wives, and an assortment of concubines. Marriage is between one man and a woman captured in war. Marriage is between one man and the woman he raped, if he doesn't want to be executed. Marriage is between one male slave and the female slave his master gives him. Marriage is a communal organism made up of a group of people who voluntarily agree to raise children and support each other. Marriage is between one man and one woman of the same race.
Marriage has changed even in the last century. While it was still one man, one woman, it was expected to be an extended family with older relatives available to help raise younger ones, and to be supported in turn when necessary. The exodus of families from the country to urban areas helped change this over time to the nuclear family of one man, one woman, and kids. Changing times and economies have also produced a society where two incomes are necessary to support a family.
Marriage must support the needs of the individual, the family, and the community. If the current definition of marriage does not do that, the definition needs to be changed.
[ August 11, 2004, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, in Sweden the Marriage Statute alone is 129 paragraphs long. The words "man" and "woman" is mentioned perhaps three time; everywhere else the word "spouse" is used. Surely it makes more sense to change those few sentences than duplicating the entire thing and call it the Partnership Statute. Inserting or changing a couple of words in the Inheritance Statute, Tax Law, Adoption Statute, etc. is much more efficient than creating entire new ways to ensure that gay couple get access to everything that has hitherto been granted heterosexual couples. Maintaining a cosmetic difference in procedure when all material rights are the same won't stop what you call "redefin[ing] the basic foundational unit of society".
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), but still think it.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Your spouse is waiting for me to marry chris so she can sleep with other people?? Tell her I said I appreciate the sacrifice, but she doesn't have to wait.
