quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: 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.
-Bok
Sure, no one asked for a refute. But if you're going to post something like that in a public forum where discussion is encouraged, be prepared for some dissent.
posted
Wow. 4 new pages since last night. Common, I only have time to read at night! I've spent all my time on this one thread!
Card's Songmaster book changed how I viewed gay people.
At Ender's Con OSC "forced" us to listen to Janis Ian, who is lesbian. That changed my views as well.
Do you know, we all could benefit from Peter Wiggin's little Locke and Demosthenes excerise. If I were to take the pro-SSM side, I have no idea what I should say.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is wrong with Janice? What if a relative of hers was on this forum?
Hopefully, ask her never, ever, ever, ever compose anything again?
She has done a couple decent songs, I have to admit. But they're greatly outweighed by the manipulative and puerile pap that she generally churns out. Nothing personal, oh ye relatives of JKP who might be reading this...
That's what we ought to do to discourage gay marriage - tell them that we will support the legalization of gay marriage IF they will agree to have Afterglow sing some JKP at the marriage. The next gay marriage will be the last.
Then again, while I disagree with SSM, I don't hate them...so I guess that won't work.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| 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?
Why isn't it a good argument? Our legal system is based off English Common Law, which in turn is based off the Bible, so many things which are illegal are illegal because they were originally deemed to be sin.
While that illegal may have changed, sin has often been considered to be a solid basis for making things illegal.
Furthermore, I'm not really sure why a belief that homosexuality is a sin makes one's opposition to gay marriage for many reasons (as given in the essay) an excuse.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: So while I truly do believe that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society
I strongly disagree with this. Is allowing gay marriage worse than all the porn on the internet now? Worse than child porn, which IS illegal?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
English common law is not based off the Bible, its heritage predates the spread of Catholic influence in England (or even the existence of Christianity).
English common law is based off of tribal law, which was supplanted by religious and secular nationalist institutions on mainland Europe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Do you know, we all could benefit from Peter Wiggin's little Locke and Demosthenes excerise. If I were to take the pro-SSM side, I have no idea what I should say.
What are the points that I would emphasize if I were to bring up the pro-SSM side?
Homosexuals are discriminated against by not allowing them to marry those they love.
As homosexuals will value the institution of marriage, allowing them to marry will strengthen society.
Opposition to homosexuality and same sex marriage is based upon religious views, and the Constitution prohibits the imposition of religious views upon society.
We should be tolerant of everyone, especially those whose views we greatly disagree with.
It won't hurt anything to allow homosexuals to marry.
Of course, having set these straw men up, I shall now proceed to knock them down:
Who said marriage has anything to do with love?
If homosexuals valued the institution of marriage, then they would agree with the traditional definition of marriage. It is that they do not value the traditional definition of marriage that causes them to want to redefine it. I can say that I believe in oranges, but that "orange" should really mean "apple".
No, the despite the efforts of the Anti-Christian-Liberties Union, the Constitution does not require the disenfranchisement of people with religious views, each of whom has the same right as anyone else to impose their values on society.
This one is generally brought up by people who are intolerant of the anti-SSM view. In defense of both, however, why should we be tolerant of things that we believe have a negative effect? We have a responsibility to fight for what we believe is right.
Said completely without any backup.
There are other arguments for SSM, and I'm sure that those for SSM would view my arguments against it as being insufficient...but really, we're not going to convince each other at this stage of the game, are we?
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:while I truly do believe that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society
See, this is one of the many things that just aren't clear to me. How is this destruction going to happen? It seemed to me that this essay pretty much glossed over it. It was like, we'll allow people who don't have this insurmountable male-female complimenting get married and then fast forward a bit and suddenly no one values marriage or believes that it is a serious commitment and it's all about selfishness and men and women will ignore their obvious differences and no one will want to have children.
I don't see how this will happen. I strongly value marriage and all that he claims will be lost. So do the gay people I know who want to get married. They're not the ones bringing this disrespect to commitment and children and family. They yearn for commitment and children and families. I support their desire to get married and I don't find myself less committed to it as a serious institution myself. If it's not coming from me and it's not coming from them, who is it coming from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: So while I truly do believe that gay marriage will destroy the fabric of society
I strongly disagree with this. Is allowing gay marriage worse than all the porn on the internet now? Worse than child porn, which IS illegal?
Is it? Possibly. Again, however, this is a shell game. They're all bad. Which one is worse, is up to debate, but they should all be opposed.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: English common law is not based off the Bible, its heritage predates the spread of Catholic influence in England (or even the existence of Christianity).
English common law is based off of tribal law, which was supplanted by religious and secular nationalist institutions on mainland Europe.
I believe that my law professor and you will have to cordially disagree. Furthermore, there is a vast difference between Common Law countries (such as ourselves and England) and the legal systems in mainland Europe.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: [QUOTE]Why isn't it a good argument? Our legal system is based off English Common Law, which in turn is based off the Bible, so many things which are illegal are illegal because they were originally deemed to be sin.
While that illegal may have changed, sin has often been considered to be a solid basis for making things illegal.
Furthermore, I'm not really sure why a belief that homosexuality is a sin makes one's opposition to gay marriage for many reasons (as given in the essay) an excuse.
What are you saying- that we should allows our religious convictions to sway our decision-making, regardless of it's illogic?
As for the author's "other reasons", I already explained why his reasoning is flawed. Besides, if he didn't believe that something was inherently wrong with homosexuality, then why insist that same-sex marriage will destroy the ideals of a traditional marriage? Let's face it- the author's convictions are rooted in his belief that gays are sinners.
quote: What are you saying- that we should allows our religious convictions to sway our decision-making, regardless of it's illogic?
As for the author's "other reasons", I already explained why his reasoning is flawed. Besides, if he didn't believe that something was inherently wrong with homosexuality, then why insist that same-sex marriage will destroy the ideals of a traditional marriage? Let's face it- the author's convictions are rooted in his belief that gays are sinners.
I believe that my religious convictions are logical.
Second, while the author likely believes that something is inherently wrong with homosexuality, it doesn't take that to decide that same-sex marriage will destroy the idea of a traditional marriage. See previous post about apples and oranges.
Lastly, let's face it - if the author's convictions are rooted solely in his belief that homosexual behavior is a sin, what's wrong with that? Is not everyone entitled to their own beliefs and to work to mold society according to their ideas? That's what the proponents of SSM are doing, after all...
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: See, this is one of the many things that just aren't clear to me. How is this destruction going to happen?
My belief is that society is to some extent based upon contracts, most importantly the marriage contract. When people are less committed to the traditional idea of marriage, then the fabric of society suffers. See how the rise in illegitimacy leads to the rise in the crime rate.
Now, I don't know how exactly the redefinition of marriage will affect society. I rather doubt that when people decided to remove the social stigma from having children out of wedlock that they knew that it would cause a sharp rise in crime. However, I don't have the burning desire to find out - or even the passive desire to let it happen.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But as I said, I'm not less committed to marriage. The gay people I know who want to get married aren't less committed to marriage. So where is this disrespect for it that you the author of this essay see flowing from it so obviously coming from?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: Is not everyone entitled to their own beliefs and to work to mold society according to their ideas? That's what the proponents of SSM are doing, after all...
I use myself as an example. I could never have an abortion, because to me it is morally wrong. But I understand that that conviction is entirely subjective- it's not based on any real logic, so if I were to vote on the subject I would vote for full legalization of abortion.
It's one thing to believe strongly in something, it's quite another to inflict entirely subjective beliefs on other people, while putting a pseudo-intellectual slant on it, such as the author of the essay did.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But as I said, I'm not less committed to marriage. The gay people I know who want to get married aren't less committed to marriage. So where is this disrespect for it that you the author of this essay see flowing from it so obviously coming from?
From what I've observed, gays who wish to marry each other show no less disrespect toward traditional ideals than a "normal" couple. In fact, I would think a gay couple who wants to marry each other, adopt children, etc. would hold even greater values toward marriage- why else would they fight tooth and nail for it?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But as I said, I'm not less committed to marriage. The gay people I know who want to get married aren't less committed to marriage. So where is this disrespect for it that you the author of this essay see flowing from it so obviously coming from?
I'm not the author of the essay. I believe that he would be able to make his case better than I can.
Here is the disrespect: The traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Proponents of SSM want to redefine it so that it is no longer just between a man and a woman. If they respected it, they would not want to change it. Now, I agree that they likely respect some parts of marriage, but they prima facie do not respect the traditional definition of marriage.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: Is not everyone entitled to their own beliefs and to work to mold society according to their ideas? That's what the proponents of SSM are doing, after all...
I use myself as an example. I could never have an abortion, because to me it is morally wrong. But I understand that that conviction is entirely subjective- it's not based on any real logic, so if I were to vote on the subject I would vote for full legalization of abortion.
It's one thing to believe strongly in something, it's quite another to inflict entirely subjective beliefs on other people, while putting a pseudo-intellectual slant on it, such as the author of the essay did.
~M
Is conviction always subjective? Can you prove that it is not based upon "real logic"?
Furthermore, do you understand that people who have the "subjective" view that SSM is good are also inflicting their views on other people, many of whom put what opponents of SSM would label a "pseudointellectual slant" on it?
This isn't quite as cut-and-dried as you seem to view it. It's not the intolerant God-Botherers "forcing" their views on the poor, oppressed homosexuals. It's two (or more) different groups, who believe in the legitimacy of their own views, trying to mold society in their image. View it from your side, I'm trying to force my views on you. View it from my side, you're trying to force your views on me. However, this paradigm is inherently flawed. It is the right of every individual in a democratic society to try to make their society the way they want it to be. Accusing others of trying to "force" it when this is done by democratic means is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are doing the same thing for their side, and to cast a false pall of illegitimacy on the opposing side.
Simply put, the accusation that my opposition to same-sex marriage for religious reasons is an attempt to "force" my views on you is as incorrect as the accusation that I am a "homophobe" for trying to do so. It is merely an attempt to avoid the core issues of whether or not SSM should be allowed by claiming that opposition to SSM is automatically wrong.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: From what I've observed, gays who wish to marry each other show no less disrespect toward traditional ideals than a "normal" couple. In fact, I would think a gay couple who wants to marry each other, adopt children, etc. would hold even greater values toward marriage- why else would they fight tooth and nail for it?
Why else would they fight? I believe that they fight for it primarily to recieve social and legal legitimization of their practice. Marriage is but one of many facets of this attempt. They want everyone to admit that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: English common law is not based off the Bible, its heritage predates the spread of Catholic influence in England (or even the existence of Christianity).
English common law is based off of tribal law, which was supplanted by religious and secular nationalist institutions on mainland Europe.
I believe that my law professor and you will have to cordially disagree.
And I believe this lawyer will have to cordially disagree with your law professor then.
Are you sure that's what he/she actually said?
quote: the traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage, which began to develop over a thousand years before the founding of the United States. The best of the pre-Saxon compendiums of the common law was reportedly written by a woman, Queen Martia, wife of a king of a small English kingdom. Together with a book on the "law of the monarchy" by a Duke of Cornwall, Queen Martia's work was translated into the emerging English language by King Alfred (849-899 A.D.). When William the Conqueror invaded England in 1066, he combined the best of this Anglo-Saxon law with Norman law, which resulted in the English common law, much of which was by custom and precedent rather than by written code. By the 14th century legal decisions and commentaries on the common law began providing precedents for the courts and lawyers to follow. It did not include the so-called law of equity (chancery), which came from the royal power to order or prohibit specific acts. The common law became the basic law of most states due to the Commentaries on the Laws of England, completed by Sir William Blackstone in 1769, which became every American lawyer's bible. Today almost all common law has been enacted into statutes with modern variations by all the states except Louisiana, which is still influenced by the Napoleonic Code. In some states the principles of Common Law are so basic they are applied without reference to statute
quote:Originally posted by tern: Is not everyone entitled to their own beliefs and to work to mold society according to their ideas? That's what the proponents of SSM are doing, after all...
I use myself as an example. I could never have an abortion, because to me it is morally wrong. But I understand that that conviction is entirely subjective- it's not based on any real logic, so if I were to vote on the subject I would vote for full legalization of abortion.
It's one thing to believe strongly in something, it's quite another to inflict entirely subjective beliefs on other people, while putting a pseudo-intellectual slant on it, such as the author of the essay did.
~M
Is conviction always subjective? Can you prove that it is not based upon "real logic"?
Furthermore, do you understand that people who have the "subjective" view that SSM is good are also inflicting their views on other people, many of whom put what opponents of SSM would label a "pseudointellectual slant" on it?
This isn't quite as cut-and-dried as you seem to view it. It's not the intolerant God-Botherers "forcing" their views on the poor, oppressed homosexuals. It's two (or more) different groups, who believe in the legitimacy of their own views, trying to mold society in their image. View it from your side, I'm trying to force my views on you. View it from my side, you're trying to force your views on me. However, this paradigm is inherently flawed. It is the right of every individual in a democratic society to try to make their society the way they want it to be. Accusing others of trying to "force" it when this is done by democratic means is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are doing the same thing for their side, and to cast a false pall of illegitimacy on the opposing side.
Simply put, the accusation that my opposition to same-sex marriage for religious reasons is an attempt to "force" my views on you is as incorrect as the accusation that I am a "homophobe" for trying to do so. It is merely an attempt to avoid the core issues of whether or not SSM should be allowed by claiming that opposition to SSM is automatically wrong.
I think we can all safely agree that faith-based opinions are far more subjective than, say, morals derived from cold, hard facts. Those facts being that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, and there is nothing wrong with gay marriages. Until those who are against same-sex marriages can come up with a logical reason stating otherwise, then I refuse to accept their stance on the issue. "Because the Bible says it's a sin", and "Because we like marriage the way it is" *are not viable arguments.* They're easily debunked by anyone.
As for advocates for same-sex marriages being just as subjective, do give examples. Because as far as I can see, I don't gain or lose anything from allowing gays to marry. *That's* an unbiased perspective for you.
quote: From what I've observed, gays who wish to marry each other show no less disrespect toward traditional ideals than a "normal" couple. In fact, I would think a gay couple who wants to marry each other, adopt children, etc. would hold even greater values toward marriage- why else would they fight tooth and nail for it?
Why else would they fight? I believe that they fight for it primarily to recieve social and legal legitimization of their practice. Marriage is but one of many facets of this attempt. They want everyone to admit that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality.
Many want acceptance because they *are* normal couples, who are enjoying the traditional ideals of family and monogamy- but due to intolerance (yes, intolerance for homosexuality, intolerance for progression- the anti-tradition) they are not being recognized as being a normal couple.
posted
I will have to rephrase that, as I was not careful enough in my wording. Specifically, my understanding of what my law professor said is that common law was influenced by the Bible. I will also add a disclaimer that he did not state how heavily it was influenced by the Bible, and that this was a comment in passing.
I found that same quote on law.com when I was looking up to see if I was full of it in regards to that reference. Looks like I was, so I retract that comment, with apologies. I'm just a 1L, so any of my comments about law that seem authoritative should be taken with the understanding that where I'm at, I'm still repeating "duty, breach, causation, damages" every night.
However, I still stand by my point that many laws have been created in order to make certain sins illegal. I think that's why the sodomy statutes were on the books until recently.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many want acceptance because they *are* normal couples, who are enjoying the traditional ideals of family and monogamy- but due to intolerance (yes, intolerance for homosexuality, intolerance for progression- the anti-tradition) they are not being recognized as being a normal couple.
And I would argue that they by definition are *not* normal couples, a normal couple being a male and a female.
Again, you raise the intolerance argument. How should I take this ad hominum logic? Should I point out that claiming that my views are intolerant and thus invalid is merely a way to avoid discussing the merits of SSM by attacking the standing of anyone who would dare oppose it? Or should I point out that your definition of intolerance is in itself intolerant? Or should I point out that your claim of that I am intolerant is pointless, because whether I am right (or wrong) is completely independent of whether or not I am intolerant. Lastly, should I point out that intolerance is not necessarily wrong? I don't tolerate pedophilia, either. For the record, I do recognize the difference, especially in degree, between homosexual behavior and pedophilia.
Intolerance of progression? Can I ask you, just what the heck are we "progressing" to? So-called "Progressives" try to invoke the name of "progress" to get support for their changes, but in my opinion, it is not "progress" that they are after, but "change", which can be either good or bad. What would you say if I told you that I believe that I am a "Progressive", too, but my definition of progress is a world that is more in tune with God? Hey, it's progress, right? Furthermore, considering the influence that "progressives" have had on our country over the last 100 years, one would expect us to be in an utopia, but adjusting for technology, are things better now than 100 years ago? Tell ya what, I have three locks on my door which I keep locked even when I'm at home, and when I drive through my neighborhood, I have to keep my eyes down so I don't get jumped. Some progress.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Our legal system is based off English Common Law, which in turn is based off the Bible, so many things which are illegal are illegal because they were originally deemed to be sin.
While that illegal may have changed, sin has often been considered to be a solid basis for making things illegal.
Because it's an argument devoid of facts and logic that relies solely on appeal to authority and circular logic? In other words, no argument at all?
quote: My belief is that society is to some extent based upon contracts, most importantly the marriage contract. When people are less committed to the traditional idea of marriage, then the fabric of society suffers. See how the rise in illegitimacy leads to the rise in the crime rate.
This statement is not born out in comparisons of divorce rate/crime rate around the world. I know you said 'illegitimacy', but what does that mean?
quote: This isn't quite as cut-and-dried as you seem to view it. It's not the intolerant God-Botherers "forcing" their views on the poor, oppressed homosexuals. It's two (or more) different groups, who believe in the legitimacy of their own views, trying to mold society in their image. View it from your side, I'm trying to force my views on you. View it from my side, you're trying to force your views on me. However, this paradigm is inherently flawed. It is the right of every individual in a democratic society to try to make their society the way they want it to be. Accusing others of trying to "force" it when this is done by democratic means is just a smokescreen to hide the fact that they are doing the same thing for their side, and to cast a false pall of illegitimacy on the opposing side.
They are not the same thing at all. If I outlawed Mormonism and said that only Catholicism was legal in the U.S., I think it's clear that that is quite different from saying that Mormonism and Catholicism can co-exist.
If I say that I say that only my house can stand, and your house must be bulldozed, that is different than saying that both can stand.
In the former instances of the two examples, one side is forced to give up something, or is not allowed to do something, while the other side is not affected materially at all. Big difference in the two outcomes, and trying to say that both are the same is, I'm sorry to say, inaccurate.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think we can all safely agree that faith-based opinions are far more subjective than, say, morals derived from cold, hard facts. Those facts being that there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, and there is nothing wrong with gay marriages. Until those who are against same-sex marriages can come up with a logical reason stating otherwise, then I refuse to accept their stance on the issue. "Because the Bible says it's a sin", and "Because we like marriage the way it is" *are not viable arguments.* They're easily debunked by anyone.
As for advocates for same-sex marriages being just as subjective, do give examples. Because as far as I can see, I don't gain or lose anything from allowing gays to marry. *That's* an unbiased perspective for you.
Much of what you believe are "cold, hard facts" are things which I believe subjective. That is not a "safe agreement." How were these facts gathered? How did the bias of the scientist or other fact-gathered affect the result? How truthful were they? Were they merely running tests to get the results that they wanted? If you are taking the scientists and sociologists at their word, then you are operating on faith just like I am with the scriptures. Now I believe that a lot of science is true, but I don't delude myself into thinking that I know for sure it's true. I don't understand everything in science (well, nobody does) and probably a lot of it is beyond me, even though I am highly educated.
The argument that the Bible says it is a sin is not debunkable by anyone. If you believe that the Bible says it's a sin, and you believe that the Bible is the most important source, than that clinches it for you. Nothing anyone else can say will "debunk" it for you. If you don't believe this, then it doesn't need "debunking", does it?
Speaking of logic and cold, hard facts, I do hope that you have something better than "as far as I can see, you don't gain or lose anything". How far can you see? How well? Unbiased? Yes. Ignorant? Possibly.
Why would you support it if you don't gain anything? What about other people?
My reasons to oppose it are first, I believe it to be an immoral practice, and second, I believe that it is very likely to have a detrimental impact on our society. And maybe it won't affect me personally - but I have to live here. Now you can't argue the first reason - it's a matter of faith and personal belief, and you don't have to argue it, because you cannot convince me otherwise and I cannot make you believe the same as myself. Now, the second point is open to debate, and I'm sure that you could bring up some good points if you weren't so focused on denying the legitimacy of the opponents of SSM. I will say this, however - from my perspective, it looks like eventually SSM will become the law of the land. At that point, we will then see whether or not it will have good effects or bad effects. And if it does have bad effects, then media and the intelligentsia will mostly ignore them, just like they ignore the correlation between crime and illegitmate birth, and the correlation between extramarital sex and the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases.
It seems to me that you believe that the opinions of religious people are inherently inferior because they are influenced by scriptures. Well, you are entitled to your beliefs. As am I. And short of disenfranchising me, you cannot stop my participation in the political process nor that of those who believe like me. You cannot separate my religious views and myself.
Aargh, I just realized that it is 2 am...I had really intended to waste my study time playing video games, instead of getting sucked into this discussion. Oh well, good practice, I suppose. G'night all.
Posts: 561 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: See, this is one of the many things that just aren't clear to me. How is this destruction going to happen?
My belief is that society is to some extent based upon contracts, most importantly the marriage contract. When people are less committed to the traditional idea of marriage, then the fabric of society suffers. See how the rise in illegitimacy leads to the rise in the crime rate.
Now, I don't know how exactly the redefinition of marriage will affect society. I rather doubt that when people decided to remove the social stigma from having children out of wedlock that they knew that it would cause a sharp rise in crime. However, I don't have the burning desire to find out - or even the passive desire to let it happen.
First of all, the "social stigma" of having children out of wedlock wasn't a law. We didn't change legislation to remove it. And having it there wasn't stopping people from having premarital sex, anyway.
Secondly, until very recently in some states (Louisiana in particular) it was "tradition" that women could not own property in their marriages. Someone changed that law. Gasp! Clearly, the fabric of society is deteriorating, since the nature of the "traditional marriage" has been altered!
"Traditional marriages" have also in the past been only within one's own race. Only within one's own social class. Only saw the wife as the bearer of children.
Has changing that been so horrible for society as a whole? Has the sky fallen? Have we regressed into lawlessness?
quote: Many want acceptance because they *are* normal couples, who are enjoying the traditional ideals of family and monogamy- but due to intolerance (yes, intolerance for homosexuality, intolerance for progression- the anti-tradition) they are not being recognized as being a normal couple.
And I would argue that they by definition are *not* normal couples, a normal couple being a male and a female.
Again, you raise the intolerance argument. How should I take this ad hominum logic? Should I point out that claiming that my views are intolerant and thus invalid is merely a way to avoid discussing the merits of SSM by attacking the standing of anyone who would dare oppose it? Or should I point out that your definition of intolerance is in itself intolerant? Or should I point out that your claim of that I am intolerant is pointless, because whether I am right (or wrong) is completely independent of whether or not I am intolerant. Lastly, should I point out that intolerance is not necessarily wrong? I don't tolerate pedophilia, either. For the record, I do recognize the difference, especially in degree, between homosexual behavior and pedophilia.
Intolerance of progression? Can I ask you, just what the heck are we "progressing" to? So-called "Progressives" try to invoke the name of "progress" to get support for their changes, but in my opinion, it is not "progress" that they are after, but "change", which can be either good or bad. What would you say if I told you that I believe that I am a "Progressive", too, but my definition of progress is a world that is more in tune with God? Hey, it's progress, right? Furthermore, considering the influence that "progressives" have had on our country over the last 100 years, one would expect us to be in an utopia, but adjusting for technology, are things better now than 100 years ago? Tell ya what, I have three locks on my door which I keep locked even when I'm at home, and when I drive through my neighborhood, I have to keep my eyes down so I don't get jumped. Some progress.
I'm avoiding the discussion? I'm not the one asking redundant questions regarding hypocritical intolerance, am I? If your views on homosexuality and gay marriage aren't based on intolerance then please enlighten me. I'm finding it increasingly tiresome that while you continue to defend your beliefs, you have yet to come up with any arguments against what I've posed. Nobody here has so much as responded to the points made in my original comment.
People who support same-sex marriages are progressing toward a society that embraces all people as equals, regardless of their sexual orientation. It's not a difficult concept.
posted
I'd like to see the connection between same sex marriage and "I might get jumped in my own neighborhood."
Oh, wait. That must be all the illegitimate kids. And they definitely wouldn't exist if we made it socially unacceptable to have children outside of wedlock, making single mothers feel as though they have even fewer resources available to them.
The argument that the Bible says it is a sin is not debunkable by anyone. If you believe that the Bible says it's a sin, and you believe that the Bible is the most important source, than that clinches it for you. Nothing anyone else can say will "debunk" it for you. If you don't believe this, then it doesn't need "debunking", does it?
Speaking of logic and cold, hard facts, I do hope that you have something better than "as far as I can see, you don't gain or lose anything". How far can you see? How well? Unbiased? Yes. Ignorant? Possibly.
Why would you support it if you don't gain anything? What about other people?
My reasons to oppose it are first, I believe it to be an immoral practice, and second, I believe that it is very likely to have a detrimental impact on our society. And maybe it won't affect me personally - but I have to live here. Now you can't argue the first reason - it's a matter of faith and personal belief, and you don't have to argue it, because you cannot convince me otherwise and I cannot make you believe the same as myself. Now, the second point is open to debate, and I'm sure that you could bring up some good points if you weren't so focused on denying the legitimacy of the opponents of SSM. I will say this, however - from my perspective, it looks like eventually SSM will become the law of the land. At that point, we will then see whether or not it will have good effects or bad effects. And if it does have bad effects, then media and the intelligentsia will mostly ignore them, just like they ignore the correlation between crime and illegitmate birth, and the correlation between extramarital sex and the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases.
It seems to me that you believe that the opinions of religious people are inherently inferior because they are influenced by scriptures. Well, you are entitled to your beliefs. As am I. And short of disenfranchising me, you cannot stop my participation in the political process nor that of those who believe like me. You cannot separate my religious views and myself.
Aargh, I just realized that it is 2 am...I had really intended to waste my study time playing video games, instead of getting sucked into this discussion. Oh well, good practice, I suppose. G'night all. [/QB]
Actually, there are plenty of people who believe that the Bible doesn't oppose homosexuality. Here is a great site that goes into depth the Bible passages that are misinterpreted to fit the anti-gay agenda: http://www.truluck.com/html/six_bible_passages.html
And the fact that your beliefs are faith-based is a strong argument in itself- but I won't get into that. As for same-sex marriages being detrimental- what's the basis for your opinion? That's the kind of discussion I'd like to have.
quote: And I would argue that they by definition are *not* normal couples, a normal couple being a male and a female.
I submit that at least part of this discussion is about the fact that many, many people believe that a same-sex couple should be considered a "normal" couple, because the central element of couplehood is the couple itself, not the individual components.
If you want to submit that a marriage is less important than the individuals within it, you can, but frankly that strikes me as a pretty severe devaluation of marriage.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I understand that that conviction is entirely subjective- it's not based on any real logic
Maybe your conviction about abortion being wrong is entirely subjective and not based on any real logic, but my conviction that abortion is wrong is certainly based on real logic.
Several people on this thread seem to not recognize that the disagreements are several layers below gay marriage. Mariann is taking it as a given that a moral tenet based in ones religion is an inadequate basis for the law.
Here's what you need to understand: many, if not most, people in this country disagree with you. The use of law to support a common morality is one of the traditional justifications for law. Although there has been increasing opposition to this notion, many people still hold to it.
Arguing from your premise that common morality is an insufficient justification for a law will not change anyone's mind who doesn't share that premise. And, if you are attempting to convince them to accept your premise, you'll have to do more than post conclusory statements saying, "this premise is good."
There are several arguments in favor of civil gay marriage that do not rely on this premise. If you use them, you may have a shot at changing someone's mind.
If you don't, but rather insist on mocking the beliefs of others for not accepting your premise on what makes good law, you will not change anyone's minds.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the technology does not exist yet that can create an artificial womb. Scientists are working on it, though - both as an infertility treatment and a possible treatment for the severely premature.
They've been testing them on bovine fetuses and the like. *shrug*
Just like SSM, non-uterine fetal development will happen eventually, barring catastrophic destruction of the civilization that supportts advancing technologies. Then the wealthy will be able to have babies without suffering the physical consequences. Lots of people already pay others to do their child-rearing for them. *shrug* Not that I think that is a good thing. It just seems to be the way the ball is rolling.
Someone throws a ball. You watch the parabola and have a good idea where it will be well before it gets there.
Which is probably a big reason why threads like this, so full of acrimony, fail to disturb me. I choose to live in a world where certain things are simply inevitable.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not the author of the essay. [Smile] I believe that he would be able to make his case better than I can.
Well, he didn't make it in that essay, and, as it's a line that many seem to push as though it was obvious, as he does, I'm hoping someone can fill in the missing steps. As I see it, the entire essay rests on the conclusion that all these terrible things are going to happen to the state of marriage, but I don't see here (nor in any of the other places people have made this assertion) a description of how or why they are going to happen. The only explanation that has been offered, as far as I can see, is that gay people and supporters of gay marriage do not value marriage or the family. But, by and large, that's just not true.
The author made the point that the disrespect was going to be for what he said (and I agreed) were the basic elements of marriage:
quote: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.
but, as you say, you're not him. It still seems to me like you're following the same argument as to how the basis of society will be destroyed and people will not respect the marriage contract, but I guess it must be different. Could you explain how?
quote:Here is the disrespect: The traditional definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Proponents of SSM want to redefine it so that it is no longer just between a man and a woman. If they respected it, they would not want to change it. Now, I agree that they likely respect some parts of marriage, but they prima facie do not respect the traditional definition of marriage.
What you're pointing out (that people would only want to ammend the defintion of marriage if they disrespected "traditional" - by that I'm assuming heterosexual - marriage) doesn't seem to me to be logical or valid. We ammend things all the time, without disrespecting them. The Consitution, for example. I don't find my respect for heterosexual marriage dimished in the slightest because I also respect homosexual marriage. The idea that two people of the same sex should be able to get married in no ways changes the seriousness with which I regard marriage nor my strong desire to get into a committed relationship and raise children (though if any of you all tell the girl I'm currently dating that, I'll do something real bad to you).
The situation is I respect Different Sex Marriage and Same Sex Marriage. You're trying to say I don't respect DSM, not based on my feelings towards DSM, but rather on the basis that I do respect SSM. The way I see it, it's not traditional marriage (i.e. a committed relationship between a man and a woman that has those bases from above that we all seem to agree on) that you're saying I don't respect, but rather tradition.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Why would you support it if you don't gain anything?
Well, by that logic I guess I shouldn't support, say, my government wasting MY tax dollars on helping people who can't afford the basic necessities of life. After all, *I* don't need government funds to buy food, so why would I possibly want anyone else to get them?
Or discrimination based on race. I'm white. It's probable that if I am in a situation involving racial discrimination, I'll be the one to benefit. So why would I possibly support having racial discrimination illegal?
Wait, I guess I do gain something from my support-- the knowledge that there is more equality and more justice because I support those things.
Oh well. There goes my arument up in smoke. Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott R wrote: I'm fairly certain that women are STILL the only humans capable of bearing children.
Clearly, then, lesbian relationships should be the pinnacle of all relationships! With two women, the couple can have twice as many children! And they can have them in parallel -- what if both women are simultaneously pregnant with twins? Imagine! Now that's fruitful multiplication.
posted
Mariann, you complained no one replied to the points you made in your initial post. I will attempt to explain why I don't find the points you made there convincing:
quote:Originally posted by Mariann: 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.
I'm not sure how this paragraph is tied together logically. First, just because some marriages fail doesn't mean radically redefining marriage won't make things worse. If my car has a flat tire I don't just say, "Oh well. Might as well pull out the engine."
Further, I don't see how the author's logic would imply young people shouldn't get married (especially since I think divorce rates would decrease if people married younger). What is your logic here?
quote: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.)
Why can't we? We deny marriage to all sorts of groups for a variety of reasons, among which are a shared value system. As for evidence that gay marriage will be more or less moral, what morality are you talking about? I think homosexuality is immoral, therefore I believe every homosexual union is less moral than an average heterosexual one.
quote: 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.
Men and women are different biologically and, I would assert and you may disagree if you choose, spiritually. To say a gay man can act like a woman is meaningless. He's still a man.
quote: 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.
Did you mistype here? Your second sentance seems to say "marriages are crumbling because we got rid of gender roles." Am I misreading? Wouldn't that belief be an argument for reintroducing gender roles (assuming we want to prevend the crumbling of marriages) which you conclude is an ignorant thing to do? And why would it be ignorant? Is it just because "everyone knows" we're better off since we got rid of traditional gender roles (a term often misunderstood and misused by both sides)? Or do you have some objective reason why it was ignorant?
quote: 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!!
This is certainly an amazing transformation, but it isn't the sort of transformation he was talking about. His belief is that a homosexual union cannot inspire the same degree of spiritual one-ness as a heterosexual one. The transformation he's talking about is two people becoming one spiritually.
quote: While the gay community certainly has a role in this, unless you're a fundamentalist then there is no problem.
What makes one a fundamentalist? Millions of people in the US and billions more around the world have a problem with SSM. Are we all fundamentalists?
quote: 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.
Gays don't want to engage in traditional marriage. They can't. Traditionally, marriage has required a man and a woman (for the last thousand plus years). Homosexuals want to redefine marriage so it will include their union. But at least some of the things the author considers "moral and good" about traditional marriage could not be part of the redefined marriage posited by the pro-SSM community.
quote: 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.
I don't think the author ever disputed much of his opposition to SSM is religously based. There's no fessing up for him to do. His point (as I see it) is that there will be extreme social repercussions to dramatically redefining the most central institutation of our society, and that he believes (possibly for religious reasons) that those social repercussions will be overwhelming negative. He's not trying to cover up his religious reasons for opposing SSM. He's showing why his religious reasons lead him to oppose it.
Finally let me say I read all your subsequent posts and, in my opinion, you are pontificating rather than listening. Have the courtesy to try to understand that people can disagree with you without them being stupid, ignorant fundamentalists. If you can do this you might be able to understand their arguments, rather than simply being disgusted by them.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I see it, the entire essay rests on the conclusion that all these terrible things are going to happen to the state of marriage,
Nope. The entire essay rests on the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, even in the "pre-existance."
That, in my opinion, is the key difference between advocates and opponents of same sex marriage -- whether opposite sex (or "traditional") marriage is the joining together of two different types of beings or two of the same type of being with superficial differences including gender.
If gender is an essential part of the "essence" (pre-exiestent intelligence, soul, spirit, whatever) of a person, then the joining together of two of the same "thing" is fundamentally different than the joining together of two complementary "things." If NOT -- then deciding who can marry who on the basis of gender is irrelevent.
And that is why, in my opinion, most of the arguments on this thread are talking past each other. Unless this fundamental difference in assumptions is addressed, the arguments on both sides miss the point.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomD asked why I liked to talk with people who agree with me rather than those who do not. There are at least two reasons. The first is that I feel completely drowned in a world that thinks and acts completely different from me and therefore there is no reason for me to go out of my way to interact with them. I am, you could say, looking for peace in a storm that I cannot seem to control.
That leads to my second reason indirectly related to the final sentence of the paragraph. In my effort to create that peace of belonging, my mission is not to discover and learn from others, but to create a particular society. In other words, metaphorically build a Kingdom rather than expand in knowledge. Therefore, my pleasure is to find like minded people as best as I can to work together to achieve as close to my ideals as possible.
OSC has the similarities and "power" to help achieve some particular goals, but sadly doesn't seem to have the desire. Rather than exciting to find him, it has become disappointing if not tragic.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
dkw, Obviously I disagree. The essay is not primarily focused on what the differences are between straight and gay marriage, but what the LDS will be giving up if gay marriage becomes legal. The central point of the essay is that not banning gay marriage will lead to these negative effects on marriage. Even if people disagree that there is a difference between men and women that overwhelms all other differences, they will not necessarily have different opinions on whether accepting gay marriage will cause the LDS to give up something and lead to a massive disrespect for marriage.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj: I'm pretty sure it's been shown that people who marry later tend to be less likely to divorce.
I mean, if you're young, you're less likely to know what you want or what can work for you. You're less likely to be willing to compromise for your relationship, especially when it comes to career. And since you're likely just starting out in said career, you're not likely to have the flexibility or options that you'd have later on. Then, of course, there's that whole mid-life crisis thing.
posted
Everyone stand back! Occ wants to make everyone think like OSC, but is now realizing that OSC doesn't necessarily want that, making it so Occ now doesn't think like OSC, except that he wants to make everyone think like OSC, but that makes him think different from OSC. I fear the resulting paradox may make his head asplode. If you have small children with you, you may not want them to see this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: And that is why, in my opinion, most of the arguments on this thread are talking past each other. Unless this fundamental difference in assumptions is addressed, the arguments on both sides miss the point.
Hear, hear. Or is it here, here. I don't think I've ever seen it written before.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The argument that the Bible says it is a sin is not debunkable by anyone. If you believe that the Bible says it's a sin, and you believe that the Bible is the most important source, than that clinches it for you. Nothing anyone else can say will "debunk" it for you. If you don't believe this, then it doesn't need "debunking", does it?
If one is going to use the Bible as their authority, I have to wonder why homosexuality is such a big deal. It doesn't seem to be for God - at least compared to other things. It doesn't, for example, get listed in the "Top Ten". Surely making it into the ten commandments would indicate some sort of priority, yet we don't have a problem with sabbath-breakers in the military, nor do we have laws against folks that covet stuff. I haven't seen many Hatrack threads or proposed constituional changes about honoring our parents?
Homosexuality is mentioned in Leviticus - along with a whole lot of other stuff. Are you trying to get laws passed that outline what kind of foods we can eat? How we make our clothing? What kind of crops we can plant? If not, why not if "the Bible says it's a sin and the Bible is the most important source"?
Paul mentions it - maybe. Depending on the translation, it's pretty iffy. Of course Paul was arguing against sensuality of any type as a symptom of secular culture; he only grudgingly acknowledged that people should marry at all.
Most importantly, in none of the gospels that most Christians hold as canonical is homosexuality ever mentioned. Not once. If this were such a hot topic, certainly our Lord would have had something to say about it. It seems He did not. What the gospels do record Jesus preaching over and over again is a message of inclusion. Of bringing everyone to the table. His harshest words were for those who attempted to judge the sins of others.
(BTW, MrSquicky, your post last night was beautiful.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I would reply that if you marry young you're less likely to be set in your ways, more likely to build a life together rather than force your partner into a pre-existing one, and more likely to accomodate differing opinions and viewpoints into future plans and aspirations. You will have more flexibility in creating a successful marriage because you won't be burdened with as many pre-existing goals. Starting out in a career is when you have the most flexability because you have yet to set your work/home priorities; a lawyer who starts his career working 90 hour weeks often ends his career working 90 hour weeks.
I think the popular opinion that marrying later in life is based solely on conjecture and to me the conjecture is unconvincing.
quote:Nope. The entire essay rests on the idea that men and women are fundamentally different, even in the "pre-existance."
quote:The essay is not primarily focused on what the differences are between straight and gay marriage, but what the LDS will be giving up if gay marriage becomes legal.
I think you're disagreeing with something other than what dkw said. She said it "rests on the idea." And really, it does. There are two major contentions made:
quote:First, that there are significant benefits that man-woman marriage brings to individuals and society generally, which can come from no other source.
Second, that extending marriage to same-sex couples would so compromise man-woman marriage that these benefits would substantially cease to flow.
The second contention is not an argument against legally recognized same-sex marriage unless the first contention is true.
The pivotal point in the discussion of contention one is based on the author's view of the gender differences that Dana mentioned, because that's what supports the inclusion of "man-woman" in that contention.
You're focusing on the conclusion, but Dana was focusing on the foundation ("rests on").
His case is entirely dependent on his belief that the blessings of marriage are absolutely dependent on the gender differences. While it's true that one can agree with this point and disagree with the conclusion, that doesn't change the fact that the essay's conclusions would fail if this point were not true.
It's also clear that one line of support (I believe the most popular one) for equal civil marriage for gay couples is the idea that gender is not important to marriage. If this argument wins out, then the concept of the importance of the gender differences will have taken an enormous hit in the minds of the public.
As I've said before, when people say "Gay marriage will weaken marriage," they don't generally mean that any identifiable couple will get divorced because two guys down the street got married. They mean the idea of the man-woman component of marriage will be weakened as an idea. They see gay marriage as an affirmation of the idea that marriage is principally about romantic love.
I happen to think the damage has been done already, by other things, and that the future of marriage as an instutition is dependent on people rigorously separating Marriage from the legal accouterments of marriage. This is why I don't see legal gay marriage as a threat to Marriage.
quote:Homosexuality is mentioned in Leviticus - along with a whole lot of other stuff. Are you trying to get laws passed that outline what kind of foods we can eat? How we make our clothing? What kind of crops we can plant? If not, why not if "the Bible says it's a sin and the Bible is the most important source"?
Because, at least according to Christian scripture, the laws regarding food were specifically "repealed" (not really the right word, but close enough and excepting laws related to blood) while the laws regarding sexual morality were not.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
