quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Sterling: "Freedom of Religion" as codified in the United States Bill of Rights should be distinguished from "Freedom from Religion". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a common slogan, Sterling, but it misses the point entirely. The First Amendment may not be aboeut freedom from religion, but it is most certainly about freedom from any particular religion.
Suppose the numbers of Catholics and Protestants were reversed in this country. Would it be justifiable for the government to make divorce illegal? Remarriage open to prosecution as bigamy?
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Sterling: I might also suggest that there _could_ be reasons for opposing homosexual marriage other than a closed circle of "homosexuality is bad because homosexuality is bad therefore homosexuality is bad and in conclusion..." One might infer, for example, that the children of homosexuals are more likely to adopt promiscuous behaviors and spread sexually transmitted diseases. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One might infer any number of things. One might be making things up out of whole cloth in the doing.
In the first place, lesbians are far less likely to spread sexually transmitted diseases than heterosexuals. So maybe the government ought to think about only allowing marriage between women. Not that I'm suggesting such a ridiculous thing, but it follows from your "inference".
<sigh>
I don't know if you noticed from the greater context of my posting, StarLisa, but I pretty much completely agree with you. As to the former, I merely wanted to point out that the Bill of Rights exists not only to protect the individual from religious persecutions, but to protect the religious individual and religions as organizations from persecution by other individuals, religions, or the government. A matter on which we appear to both be thankful.
As to the latter, _I_ wouldn't "infer" any such thing, but others do. I merely wanted to be clear on the point that there may be more to the thought processes of those who oppose homosexual unions than a simple "gay=bad/evil" equation. You might note I _also_ said
quote:I don't happen to agree with these statements, as I think they are based on suppositions and that the potential good caused by allowing some manner of homosexual unions outweighs the potential harm, which I think is often exaggerated or imagined.
I love my daughter more than my own life. If some time in the future she revealed that she was a lesbian, my only negative feeling would be the fear for her for the increased difficulties she'd face in the society we live in.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't know if you noticed from the greater context of my posting, StarLisa, but I pretty much completely agree with you. As to the former, I merely wanted to point out that the Bill of Rights exists not only to protect the individual from religious persecutions, but to protect the religious individual and religions as organizations from persecution by other individuals, religions, or the government. A matter on which we appear to both be thankful.
As to the latter, _I_ wouldn't "infer" any such thing, but others do. I merely wanted to be clear on the point that there may be more to the thought processes of those who oppose homosexual unions than a simple "gay=bad/evil" equation. You might note I _also_ said
[QUOTE]I don't happen to agree with these statements, as I think they are based on suppositions and that the potential good caused by allowing some manner of homosexual unions outweighs the potential harm, which I think is often exaggerated or imagined.
I love my daughter more than my own life. If some time in the future she revealed that she was a lesbian, my only negative feeling would be the fear for her for the increased difficulties she'd face in the society we live in.
Sterling, I did see that, as I read on, but you write cogently, and I didn't want to leave those claims unrefuted, even if they were offered as "devil's advocate" claims.
And I honestly do think that the vast, vast majority of people who have a problem with granting any sort of equal rights to gays and lesbians derive that opposition, ultimately, from a basic "Ew. Icky." sentiment.
Whether it is from a religious point of view or not, it's ultimately based on an emotional response, much as opposition to miscegenation was.
As I said, I'm an Orthodox Jew. The Torah that says "A man may not lie with a man in the manner of lying with a woman" is ours, and we take all of the laws in the Torah far more seriously than anyone else.
But the homophobia in the Orthodox Jewish community goes far, far beyond the parameters of that commandment. And I'm used to hearing members of my community using the Torah to support their personal feelings of "Ew. Ick.", rather than taking their feelings from the Torah.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can people understand how the argument that OSC, one of most on this boards favorite writers in large part because of his clear and emotionally evocative writing, didn't actually mean what it seems clear to many that he wrote, that it was simply poor word choice, doesn't seem to be a strong one to some people? Especially as it's become a perrenial defense of his writing?
I think OSC is a very intelligent man, a writer of tremendous talent, and well versed in persuasive writing. When faced with a choice between believing that he chose "They'll just be playing dress-up in their parents' clothes." to imply that they'd be acting like children or that he's a poor enough writer to not realize that this is the clear implication of such a statement, I choose the former. Especially as it is in line with the other things he's said.
This is the man who said that we should have laws against gay sex on the books and from time to time throw some gay people in jail as a lesson to the rest of them.
Regarded the psychological health of gay people, he said:
quote: The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
an idea (that this number is significantly large) that I know he didn't get from any reputable source because it's just not true.
On their decision making capability he's said:
quote:I'm amused that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts.
and
quote: They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all.
And that's leaving aside his greater point that the pro-gay marriage movement is really just an outreach of the power group of people who hate families.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Can people understand how the argument that OSC, one of most on this boards favorite writers in large part because of his clear and emotionally evocative writing, didn't actually mean what it seems clear to many that he wrote, that it was simply poor word choice, doesn't seem to be a strong one to some people? Especially as it's become a perrenial defense of his writing?
I'm sorry, Squick, but to me, there's a big difference between someone who is mistaken and someone who is hateful. I do suspect that he was harsher with Donna Minkowitz because of her hostile attitude, but I certainly wouldn't defend his statements outside of that. He's wrong.
But someone can be wrong and still treated with some respect. And yes, even when he's dishing disrespect at you. I'd rather have someone use their critical faculties and disagree with me than have a hundred knee-jerkers grant me blind acceptance without firing a neuron.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: This is the man who said that we should have laws against gay sex on the books and from time to time throw some gay people in jail as a lesson to the rest of them.
<raised eyebrow> Might I ask what your source is for that? Particularly the second one? Is it possible that you're engaging in a bit of hyperbole or reformulation of what he actually said?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Regarded the psychological health of gay people, he said:
quote: The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally.
an idea (that this number is significantly large) that I know he didn't get from any reputable source because it's just not true.
Well, you don't actually know that. And his statement was more rhetoric than assertion, because he doesn't even say "how many". He just implies that it's a lot. The dark secret of our society -- one that dares not speak its name (whatever that means) -- is how many people had their first sexual experience through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse.
It's not what he said that's untrue, I don't think. It's what he implied. As an experienced writer, he knows how to use words.
As to the "wanting to get out" thing, there are Mormons who don't want to be Mormons. Jews who don't want to be Jews. There are people who want to get out of any number of situations that they're in, and often because they're treated like crud by others. If a Jew wants to assimilate, change his name from Jack Cohen to Rodney Dangerfield (no, I'm not kidding), and abandon any connection with Judaism, does it mean that there's something wrong with Judaism? Are ex-Mormons an indication of a fundamental flaw in the Mormon religion?
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: On their decision making capability he's said:
quote:I'm amused that you think it doesn't hurt anyone. The homosexuals that I've known well, I have found none who were actually made happier by performing homosexual acts.
and
quote: They steal from me what I treasure most, and gain for themselves nothing at all.
And that's leaving aside his greater point that the pro-gay marriage movement is really just an outreach of the power group of people who hate families.
I can understand him thinking that way. He's wrong, of course, but I get why he'd think it. I mean, most of the bigshots coming out in support of same sex marriage tend to be the same folks who sling around buzzwords like "patriarchy", and make no secret of wanting to tear down more than they want to build.
YMMV, but this is exactly one reason why I hate being represented by these people. Or being perceived as being represented by them. OSC is wrong, but what does he have to go on?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, I'm going to try and take it point for point.
First, I've never said that we need to pretend that religion doesn't exist. After multiple times of asking the question, I condensed "relies on defining homosexuality as wrong and harmful based on 'I believe my God say that it is wrong.'" to relies on religion.
If you accept that principle, I don't see what stops say a Baptist majority from saying that being LDS constitutes harm and passing laws agasinst this idea (such as, by default, taking the children away from the LDS parent in a divorce of a mixed religion marriage or barring LDS couples from adopting).
Not only do I value religion (while at the same time looking unfavorably on the seedy semblance of it that many people seem to offer up under this label), but I'm deeply religious myself. Just because I believe, based on both this religion and other factors, that religion is a personal thing and that forcing it on others is both not justifiable and likely to lead to a distortion of this religion, doesn't mean that I am without religion. Just because I don't share your faith, that doesn't mean that I am faithless. (And this is the second time I've been falsely accused of not being religious in this debate.)
---
I'm going to take objection to your description of society at large as some sort of consciously chosen cesspool that the morally superior religious people keep away from. Society is made up of religious people. 80% of our population selfidentify as Christians. If there's a problem with society (and I think there are many) I don't see how you can say that the overwhelming majority of people in that society aren't a part of it.
We haven't consciously chosen to treat marriage "as a contract of convenience between a romantic couple that wants to share their assets for a while, and who can decide at any time to back out of their agreement." We haven't "decided that a parent's boredom or lust or unwillingness to compromise trumps a child's need to have a family." When asked, most people would strongly reject these ideas as reflecting their conception of marriage.
---
And then, your description of the problems with marriage rely on a comparison to the way we never were. Marriage didn't enjoy a golden age in the 50s. It was severely troubled. Conjuring up some fantasty (from the tv shows of the time perhaps) to point to and say "Look at what you people decided to throw away." doesn't work for me.
You said: "We resort to law enforcement to track down deatbeat dads, where once we depended on a sense of honor and social disapproval of divorce and illegitimacy to keep those guys in their homes." which is true, but doesn't treat the fact that this sense of honor and social dispproval didn't work all that well. Consider the cliche'd description of Dad leaving to get a pack of cigarrettes and never coming back. This was a common way of ending a marriage in the time of no or little divorce. Also common, and to a large extent socially sanctioned, was physical and emotion wife and child abuse.
---
Also, I wish people would stop making claims about social change that a brief look at the landmarks in the civil rights movement show to be wrong.
Saying, "When you depend on the police, and not social pressure, to do your social work for you, your society has already failed." doesn't really stand up in the face of things like this. Or has integrating the schools and the civil rights movement in general failed?
---
quote:There ARE still subcultures in America that take marriage seriously for the purposes I've described — treating it as an honorable adult responsibility geared towards raising healthy and civilized families. The problem (for you) is the fact that most of these subcultures have managed to hold onto these values because it was a part of their faith. Where members of other subcultures might be more promiscuous, or might break up their marriages with less provocation, these people AREN'T and DON'T, and society benefits because of it.
Except that's not true, is it? I mean, KoM's already posted the divorce statistics that show that religious people (which comprise the vast majority of our population, remember) have a higher rate of divorce than non-religious - yes, yes, there are obviously issues using it this way, but you can hardly claim that they are less likely to break up their marriages - and that envangelicals, who make up likely the strongest block of anti-gay activists have just about the highest rate of divorce.
And, as I've said, I am extremely concerned about the state of marriage and the family in America, as are large numbers of other people and groups (or are you saying that the ASA, APA, and AAP don't actively promote stable marriages as the best environment for raising children? Because I can show that wrong with little effort.) who support gay marriage, many of whom are themselves religious and even Christian. Your argument seems to rest on me and many, many others like me not caring about marriage, where this couldn't be farther from the truth.
I mean, really, what you said is like saying that ony people who push abstinence only education are concerned with preventing STDs.
Besides which, I'm pretty sure we'd agreed some ways back that, even if you grant the dubious proposition that gay marriage is a going to hurt marriage, there are real threats to marriage that are far more serious and widespread than this which the por-marriage people don't seem to be doing anything about. In fact, part of the criticism leveled at these people is there twisting of the "protecting marriage" banner into being about being anti-gay and not about actually helping marriage out. There are serious problems out there, but they all seem to be concerned about bashing gays.
I don't buy into the hype and the slogans or the prejudices. Christians are not morally superior to everyone else in society. The people who are against gay marriage aren't anywhere near the only people who are strong supporters of marriage.
---
I don't see how saying that you can't use your religion as sole justification to legislate against other people is "repudiating" religion. Is the argument that some religious say "We want you to do this." and people not doing that constitutes repudiating religion? Because that doesn't make sense to me. Is it repudiating religion to strike down the anti-gay sodomy laws? Is it repudiating religion to insist that the government not raise Christianity to the status of the official state religion?
Is it only on this issue that would saying "No." would be a bad thing. I mean, if we accepted that this is repudiating them and that this is a bad thing logically shouldn't any similar "repudiation" be a bad thign for marriage and for society in general?
---
Finally, if OSC's essay making marriage out to be something that people don't want to chose to do but must for the survival of the species is the view of marriage you want me to support, you can forget it. If the what I see as the immature and weak morality of many of the people who claim to be religious is what you want me to support, if you think I should just assume ignore the evidence and assume that they are more concerned about what acutally makes marriage work than I, you can likewise forget.
Marriage, like most other things, is a lot more complicated to foster than saying "Marriage- Yay!" and punihsing people who don't do right. I find OSC's take on it, were it widespread, a much more serious attack on marriage than anything you could say about letting gay people marry.
People remain married because it is a meaningful relationship where they are building a life with each other and then with their children. They don't remain married because outside forces tell htem to or force them to. In the times of no divorce, there were tons of people who lived together as man and wife under the law who were yet not what I would considered married. If you're for a deeper understanding of what marriage is and can be and what we can do to foster this, I'm all for it. But I don't see this as being something that the anti-gay religious crowd is good at.
I don't think that religious people, or at least the ones you're championing, are right or the good guys here. Even if I did, I wouldn't support the substanital bigotry on that side nor the idea that they should be allowed to legislate their religion onto other people.
posted
starL, I don't see where I haven't treated him with respect here(although I've somewhat regreted word choice I've used elsewhere). Nor do I think he is hateful. I do think he is actively and consciously playing the demogouge, something I'm not sure I don't think is worse than being hateful.
As to the anti-sodomy laws, he said this:
quote:This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
I do know that he didn't get the idea that there are a large number of gay people who were sexually abused and are now trapped in a lifestyle they hate from a reputable source. I know the numbers (the APA does too and they've released a statement about these types of claims. I think it will be in the general policy statement of the APA I linked before.) and they don't support that claim at all. No reputable source would claim that they did.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see where I haven't treated him with respect here(although I've somewhat regreted word choice I've used elsewhere). Nor do I think he is hateful. I do think he is actively and consciously playing the demogouge, something I'm not sure I don't think is worse than being hateful.
(Italics mine).
Are you going for an Orwellian double-speak award?
Edit: I don't think Geoff was saying that marriage was hunky-dory in the 50s.
I don't think you understand the Civil Rights movement at all if you think it was thrust upon an unwilling population by force alone, and that it was police and military efforts that permitted its success.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
That is, what do you mean by the first part and what makes you think that I was suggesting that civil rights were thrust on an unwilling population by force alone? Or how would that characterization be at all analogous to the current gay rights issue?
Also, Geoff has consitently held the past up as this standard from which we have fallen. I don't find that it meets this criteria in anything except for the fantasy version that seems lodged in some people's minds.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I do know for certain one thing: any statistics about the 'origins' of homosexuality are by definition suspect, whichever conclusions they point towards. Homosexuality at this point in America is not something that people are open and unafraid enough to discuss that they may be taken at face value, unfortunately.
Rather like distrubuting surveys in high schools for students to take in homeroom, but with a much less pleasant reason than just wanting to raise some hell-homosexuals are in the closet, homosexuals don't want to answer deeply personal questions, homosexuals just don't like taking surveys, not all homosexuals are asked, etc. etc.
Incidentally, I tend to believe that OSC's remark about anti-sodomy laws being kept on the books is probably designed as a means of hammering rapists and child-molesters with another layer of criminal charges. Again, I find it implausible that the man who wrote Songmaster would in any way support the random locking up of homosexuals 'caught in the act' just to 'send a message' to the other homosexuals out there.
But I disagree that such laws should be kept on the books.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, OSC seemed quite clear about who he meant. The part I quoted (taken from an essay that is entirely about homosexuality) is quite explicit about who he means:
quote:Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books
.
And you're wrong about statistics about the origins of homosexuality being by definition suspect. It can be terribly difficult to show a positive case (i.e. this factors cases homosexality), but it's much easier to prove a negative one. There's a nice two way test to see if sexual abuse is a significant causitive factor in homosexuality. You look at homosexuals to see if they have significantly more sexual abuse in their past and you look at people who have been sexually abused to see if they are significantly more likely to turn out to be homosexual. This test, along with tons of others testing the hypotheses that homsexuality is the result of sexual dsyfunction and/or psychopathology have return negative results.
Besides which, if we grant your idea, wouldn't OSC have then made a pretty definite and negative assumption based on very unreliable data?
Also, part of OSC's assumption was that there was a substantial aount of ego-dystonic homosexuality (i.e. gays who hate being gay). This is not accurate in anywhere near the levels to suggest that, even assuming that all of these people were sexually abused, which isn't true, that it would be a dark secret that no one dares to talk about.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know anything about ego-dystonic homosexuality, my point about the statistics being suspect is this: many, many homosexuals are in the closet.
How do you survey them, exactly?
Many, many crimes of sexual assault, child molestation, etc., go unreported. How do you survey victims of such crimes to follow up on their sexuality later in life?
Yes, I think OSC's statement is not factual, and was in fact made from anectdotal 'evidence'.
Child-molestation between a man and a boy could be considered, by a very bare-bones defintion, homosexual behavior. I do not, however, think that homosexuals are more likely to be child-molesters, for the reasons I stated above (we don't know enough about the homosexual population), and because there are lots of straight child-molesters out there too.
quote:Saying, "When you depend on the police, and not social pressure, to do your social work for you, your society has already failed." doesn't really stand up in the face of things like this. Or has integrating the schools and the civil rights movement in general failed?
You are suggesting here that it was through the efforts of police and government force that the civil rights movement was able to be as successful as it was (and please, don't deny that was an obvious assumption from that statement-you routinely call OSC to the carpet for assumptions that are equally 'obvious')
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are suggesting here that it was through the efforts of police and government force that the civil rights movement was able to be as successful as it was
Yes, yes I did. I'm not sure I understand your objection to this. Are you saying that the willingness to use and then application of force to ensure school integration was not a significant thing in the civil rights movement?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surveying doesn't rely on testing an entire population. Rather, you take a subset of the population and use statistical methods to make inferences (with a defined percentage or error) about the population as a whole.
That there are cases of sexual abuse that go unrecorded and that there are homosexuals that aren't open about this do not invalidate studies of the correlation between these two things. They may introduce a source of eror, although that's one that studies of psychopathology have be aware of and long developed methods of dealing with.
edit: Also, do you still stand by your statement that OSC must have been talking about rapists and molestors in the quote where he says "I'm talking about homosexuals."?
edit 2: Also, I don't understand the Orwellian double-speak accusation from above. What did you mean by that?
posted
I'll assume you're not joking when you said you didn't understand my Orwellian remark, but how you could possibly be so obtuse is beyond me...
quote:I don't see where I haven't treated him with respect here(although I've somewhat regreted word choice I've used elsewhere). Nor do I think he is hateful. I do think he is actively and consciously playing the demogouge, something I'm not sure I don't think is worse than being hateful.
You say you aren't treating him with disrespect here, but then one sentence later you say you're convinced he's playing an anti-gay demagogue, doing so deliberately, and that it's worse than being a run-of-the-mill anti-gay bigot.
In what way is that possibly anything but disrespectful? I can't wait to hear this, although I'm sure the response will either be 1. That's not disrespectful or 2. I don't mean what I plainly said.
-----
I did not say OSC must have been talking about only rapists and molestors. I said it was possible he might have been doing so, in order to hammer rapists and molesters with another criminal charge. And since it is a sensitive subject, I was also careful to point out that I don't think that such things are behavior common or tolerable or any such thing to the vast majority of homosexuals.
I also said I think it's a mistake to keep such a law on the books even if OSC's intent was what I said it might be, for a variety of reasons.
--
quote:Surveying doesn't rely on testing an entire population. Rather, you take a subset of the population and use statistical methods to make inferences (with a defined percentage or error) about the population as a whole.
That there are cases of sexual abuse that go unrecorded and that there are homosexuals that aren't open about this do not invalidate studies of the correlation between these two things. They may introduce a source of eror, although that's one that studies of psychopathology have be aware of and long developed methods of dealing with.
Yes, I'm aware that a survey never surveys the entire population, but rather seeks a representative sample, and then makes inferences based on a survey of this representative sample. Haven't you been hearing me?
We do not know if the populations surveyed are a representative sample. Because many homosexuals, for good reason, don't admit they are homosexual. I'm not saying that studies about the truth about correlation between past sexual assault and current homosexuality are invalidated-personally I'm unconvinced either way, because of my uncertainty about such studies.
I would love to hear about methods psychopathology has of addressing doubt in statistical studies that, you must admit, may or may not be including whole swaths of the population. Studies whose samples, in short, we have no way of verifying that they're representative.
All that means to me as far as the issue of same-sex marriage is this: if you cannot prove it is harmful to parties other than the couple to be wed, then I believe equal rights, protections, and responsibilities simply must be applied to homosexuals in the same way I know 2+2=4. It's an obvious, as plain as the nose on your face application of equal protection under the law.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know I'm setting myself up here, but I need to pipe in...
quote: All that means to me as far as the issue of same-sex marriage is this: if you cannot prove it is harmful to parties other than the couple to be wed, then I believe equal rights, protections, and responsibilities simply must be applied to homosexuals in the same way I know 2+2=4. It's an obvious, as plain as the nose on your face application of equal protection under the law.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head on the crux of the problem. It seems a very reasonable request at first glance, and I can see why people would be in favor of it.
The problem I see is two-fold. First, this issue is so heavily influenced by personal bias that studies are immediately accepted or dismissed based on if their conclusions match one's beliefs. Can this issue ever really be "proven"?
That was a big issue between Squick and myself earlier in this thread. Of the five or so professional organizations with an opinion on the subject that he shared, only a couple cited previous studies to back up their claims...with nothing done earlier than 1994 and with sample sizes not always reputable to infer trends on a national level. Of the two with any links to studies at all, one was heavily connected with one homosexual advocacy group after another--clearly in that camp's back pocket.
Those studies that refuted gay marriage were dismissed as wrong, biased, or not to be trusted because they come from advocacy groups. The science wasn't even addressed. So who is to be trusted? Why would one professional organization with a very clear agenda be considered reputable, while another is considered biased? Because the one accepted coincides with one's personal beliefs, and the other does not.
With that kind of subjectivity, especially when we're dealing with a decade's worth of studies against hundreds of years of status quo, I find it both irresponsible and dangerous to start screwing around with such a huge social construct. It was so-called "evidence" cited to "prove" we needed to invade Iraq, and look where we are now. When it comes to disputed social agendas, studies are ever, if rarely, objective.
Second, Squick brings up a good point about making a separation between religious belief and scientific integrity. But the problem is that you can't in this regard. Making religion a second or third class citizen is contrary to the very notion of equal representation. We take all perspectives into consideration--scientific study, status quo, personal belief, religious thought, casual opinion--when laws are changed. This arrogant presumption that religion has no place reveals a level of bigotry often pronounced on others.
I have always been of the belief that such change ought to be the responsibility and accountability of the people. Not government. Not the courts. And everyone on all sides of this debate has a right to cast their vote. Both sides feel the other is morally and ethically wrong, and I seriously doubt most of them will cite a study when they cast their vote.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, If you know my answer, why don't you address it? I don't see how I was being disrespectful. Do you think saying you think someone is doing something that is wrong constitute disrespect?
---
You didn't suggest that it was possible that he might have been talking about rapists and molesters. You said:
quote:Incidentally, I tend to believe that OSC's remark about anti-sodomy laws being kept on the books is probably designed as a means of hammering rapists and child-molesters with another layer of criminal charges. Again, I find it implausible that the man who wrote Songmaster would in any way support the random locking up of homosexuals 'caught in the act' just to 'send a message' to the other homosexuals out there.
and I'm wondering how you can take a quote that is specifically talking about "Laws against homosexual behavior" in an essay about homosexuality and why it's wrong that at no point says that he's talking about rapists and molesters and say that it's implausible that he was talking about homosexuals and that you tend to believe that he was talking about rapists and molesters. Considering the very clear directedness towards homosexuals and the total absence of any mention of rapists and molesters in that part, what are you basing your belief on?
---
quote:We do not know if the populations surveyed are a representative sample.
You're wrong. We do know this. The studies followed established, reliable procedures of statistical population sampling. You may want to believe that they didn't, but you don't actually know anything about the studies, do you?
---
estavares, You didn't provide any studies showing that homosexual marriage was a bad idea. There was no science to address or ignore. You also made claims to information that you clearly did not possess and attempted to back it up with sources that didn't support it and one bit that was directly opposed to your claim. Thinking that you didn't prove your case didn't require bias, merely a tiny bit of common sense. It doesn't take bias or manipulation to show how someone who is just making things up is wrong.
Also, your description of the information I provided is very innaccurate.
There is no move here to treat religious people as second-class citizens. It is specicially about not letting people use their untransferrible, untestible values and biases as the sole justification for legislating against other people. It's not like people are trying to stop religious people from doing this thing that everyone else is allowed to do. Rather, it's removing this priviledged status from some religious people and making them follow the same rules as everyone else.
It's like suggesting that preventing the government from endorsing Christianity, just like every other religion, means you're making Christians second-class citizens. That's absurd.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Incidentally, I tend to believe that OSC's remark about anti-sodomy laws being kept on the books is probably designed as a means of hammering rapists and child-molesters with another layer of criminal charges.
Sounds pretty much like a "suggest[ion] that it was possible that he might have been talking about rapists and molesters."
posted
Something about the difference between possibility and probability. The first statement implies that this is the most (or at least a definitely) likely thing. The second said, "Here's something that might be true." It's possible that OSC was talking about a lot of things. It's possible he when he said "Laws against homosexuals" he actually meant laws against all people who don't get married in a church, but it's not at all probable. Possibilities are endless. Probabilities, on the other hand, are strictly limited.
Also, to finish out the quoted part, he said:
quote:Again, I find it implausible that the man who wrote Songmaster would in any way support the random locking up of homosexuals 'caught in the act' just to 'send a message' to the other homosexuals out there.
That is, it is very unlikely that this quote:
quote:This applies also to the polity, the citizens at large. Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those whoflagrantly violate society's regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.
was actually about using "Laws against homosexuals" to "send a clear message" that they "cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society".
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, estavares, here's a little bit about some of your sources and how little they care about integrity. And who knows, maybe OSC got his information from these liars too.
You are so good at taking people's words and changing them into something that did not exist. It's a very clever talent.
I never said religious people are being treated as second-class citizens. But you clearly said that religion as a basis of civil law or change has no place in our society. Did homosexuals push this issue because of studies revealing that their lifestyle was in all ways equal to traditional marriage? Of course not. They push this issue because it is what they want and how they feel and what they believe and no amount of studies contrary to their lifestyle will sway that view.
You hold to and push a double standard. This has everything to do with both sides pushing their own social agenda. When was science ever a real motivator in this debate? And when did recent studies have the weight to trump centuries of status quo? That sort of arrogance is as dangerous as doctors on TV hawking cigarettes in the 1950s.
EDIT: The majority of this article is about Dr. Cameron. One source I don't recall ever mentioning.
It's funny how the reporter states the APA have no "political agenda" yet they certainly make a point to lobby their ideas to government, all the while touting homosexual advocacy groups in their back pocket. Brilliant.
I went out of my way to use like four different words in one paragraph that weren't declaring certainty, and then have said repeatedly that I think his word choice was careless in any case. I'll just drop that particular issue now.
quote:You're wrong. We do know this. The studies followed established, reliable procedures of statistical population sampling. You may want to believe that they didn't, but you don't actually know anything about the studies, do you?
Please, tell me how I'm wrong. Give details. I would love to hear what established, reliable procedures are capable of finding closeted homosexuals who do not want to be found.
You can be snide all you like, Mr. Squicky, but unless those studies are, like, using the Force or something to read people's minds, how are you sure you're finding true statistical samples of the homosexual population? That's almost like trying to find Communists in the 50s in America! People aren't always going to admit they're Communists for a very sensible fear of reprisal.
quote:There's a nice two way test to see if sexual abuse is a significant causitive factor in homosexuality. You look at homosexuals to see if they have significantly more sexual abuse in their past and you look at people who have been sexually abused to see if they are significantly more likely to turn out to be homosexual. This test, along with tons of others testing the hypotheses that homsexuality is the result of sexual dsyfunction and/or psychopathology have return negative results.
This is the only specific method you've mentioned, and it sounds to me-the ignorant layman, please, forgive me-as though its got one problem I've mentioned more than once. Sure, you can look at people who are public about their homosexuality and draw conclusions about them. And you can even study victims of sexual assault / child abuse and draw conclusions about them.
But you and I both know two things, Mr. Squicky. There are closeted homosexuals, and even worse, not all cases of sexual assault are reported. How do you include in any study of homosexuality or the sexuality of sex-crime victims, people you don't know are homosexuals and/or victims?
I'd be very interested in learning how you do that, as I've said. Please, tell me.
-----------
Estavares,
quote:I have always been of the belief that such change ought to be the responsibility and accountability of the people. Not government. Not the courts. And everyone on all sides of this debate has a right to cast their vote. Both sides feel the other is morally and ethically wrong, and I seriously doubt most of them will cite a study when they cast their vote.
I agree. Such changes should be the responsibility of the people, accountable and due to them, not the government. Wait...the government is the people, it is elected by the people, and when it displeases sufficient numbers of the people, it is changed.
I'm sorry, but we have some very compelling legal arguments about how the US Constitution-which is our ruling document, btw, we do what it says until we change it-says we are currently mistreating our homosexual minority.
Even more than that, we have some obvious, extremely compelling moral and ethical arguments as to why the continued persecution, discrimination, and second-class citizenry of homosexuals in America is abhorrent and wrong. I'm sorry, but as much and as well as I can understand your argument that 'the people' should be the ones doing the deciding, I think that line is drawn well before deciding that adult people who pay taxes, serve in the military, work honestly at decent jobs, and try to help one another, should be treated as second-class citizens.
I don't think all people who believe same-sex marriage should not be permitted are bigots. I don't think they're all hate-mongers. I don't think they're all demagogues. I think they've often started from some very basic assumptions about the world, and correctly from their view operate based on those assumptions, in doing so losing sight of one of the most basic assumptions of all about being an American: if you're an adult citizen of this country, you should get to live your life in your own private home, most especially in your bedroom, in your church, in your employment, in your voting-booth, etc., as you choose, so long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights to do the same.
I know that's not the law of the land. I don't care. I don't care that the Founding Fathers never meant for same-sex marriage to be legal. I don't care that to the majority of Americans (and even, I must admit, to myself sometimes), homosexuality is something that makes us squeamish. I don't care that God tells most people that homosexuality is wrong. I don't give a flying damn about any of that.
They pay taxes. They vote. They're adults. They even, sometimes without us even knowing it, bleed with us. They're living right next to us, they're our brothers and sisters and co-citizens. Those things are facts. You need more than uncertainty about what their being permitted the same dignities as other Americans will do to future generations to deny them those same dignities.
-----------
Mr. Squicky,
One other thing.
quote:If you know my answer, why don't you address it? I don't see how I was being disrespectful. Do you think saying you think someone is doing something that is wrong constitute disrespect?
Now I personally think that being deliberately hateful is something that's pretty bad. In fact, I personally would categorize it as often being evil. You say that OSC is not being hateful, but in fact deliberately playing a demagogue. You say that this is perhaps worse than being hateful, and you expect me to take you seriously when you say you aren't being disrespectful?
Please. Speak plainly, for a change, I beg you.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, he called him a "freaking nutjob" elsewhere, so his thoughts on OSC are plain.
Rakeesh:
It makes sense at first, but not caring about how God thinks is where the rift exists. People DO consider God's will higher than anything else. And granting legal and civil acceptance to an immoral lifestyle, in their opinion, is in full opposition of what promotes the means to a stable, healthy society. A few years of research will not dispel that belief, just as hunderds of years of religious thought doesn't convince people homosexuality is a sin.
This idea that we must rely only on short-term evidence is unrealistic at best, dangerous at worst. And this is not about denying anyone the right to live their life as they see fit. It's about getting a piece of a pie, especially when most of the slices are already available.
I'm all for basic rights for adoption and medical access and such for ANY two people who qualify of it. I do think there can be a solution that serves both sides, but it will never happen, because both sides will never be happy until their demands are met.
I figure if the barn doors open, then they open to everyone––polygamy, triads, concentual incest and any other alternative type of marriage should have legal status. Why stop there?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:This idea that we must rely only on short-term evidence is unrealistic at best, dangerous at worst. And this is not about denying anyone the right to live their life as they see fit. It's about getting a piece of a pie, especially when most of the slices are already available.
I didn't say anything about evidence one way or another. But you lack any substantial evidence at all to say why it is harmful, aside from religious evidence. The law of America, the US Constitution, tells us that this is simply insufficient. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
It is all about denying people the right to live their lives as they see fit. They want a piece of the pie, because they paid for the pie, too. Like I said: they pay taxes, they vote, they bleed with us, they are our co-citizens. It does't matter that 'most' of the slices are already available, they feel-rightly-that to deny them a few other slices is a slap in the face.
Which it is.
There are more than 'two sides'. Your side seems content with 'seperate but equal', estavares. If you're for everything that marriage entails, why not simply call it marriage or else just change the name to civil union? Who do you think you're kidding?
There's a reason 'slippery slope' is called a fallacy, you know. How much incest do you think is really consentual? Why shouldn't polygamy be legal? Frankly I find it distasteful, but so long as it is between adults at or beyond the age of consent who do, in fact, consent?
And anyway, just because someone will later try and marry their cat is insufficient reason to deny equal rights and protections and responsibilities to citizens who contribute and pay just as much today. You spoke of pies, estavares. Homosexuals are being charged $1.95 for a slice of pie, they're paying that price, and they're not getting the same slice that you or I do. They ain't gettin' apple pie a la mode, they're gettin' that McDonald's single-sliced boxed crap, and they hafta jump through hoops to get that. And when they do get that piece of crap slice of pie, they face persecution and scorn for having that much.
Incidentally, I did not say that I don't care what God things, I said I don't care what God tells most people to do on any given issue. In other words, I don't care what God tells you to do, Estavares, about same-sex marriage. God telling you something is insufficient reason to deny rights to someone else. We are governed by the US Constitution, which makes no space for one person getting told something by God and thus getting to deny some other person something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:polygamy, triads, concentual incest and any other alternative type of marriage should have legal status. Why stop there?
Consensual incest is easy - it potentially victimizes the children of the union, and it's hard to say intergenerational incest is ever consensual.
As to poly- marriage, the answer is even easier. Almost all the legal benefit (as in benefit to the legal system) of marriage derives from the designation of one single person as a spouse's partner. We need to know who to get medical approval from when I'm unconscious? My wife. I died and left no will - who gets my retirement benefit? My wife. The key is that there is no one else in the world presumed to be more capable of speaking for me than my wife.
Once you introduce another person, all that disappears. Now we need a way to decide between two other people - something totally obviated by marriage now.
Of course, there are reasonable solutions to this problem. But every one adds a complication. Either you designate the "real" spouse, in which case you've really got a marriage and something less than a marriage, or you set up a bunch of rules for deciding these things, or you let the spouses designate a different person they want to fulfill each role.
But we already have a bunch of rules for deciding who an unmarried person's next of kin is. We already have a mechanism for any competent adult to change that designation, or decide who has financial power of attorney, or who has medical power of attorney, etc. Adding poly marriage to the mix adds nothing.
Now, I do think the policy enforced in the Reynolds decision which criminalized a person living with other willing partners is wrongheaded. Bigamy laws prohibiting one from getting married when already married are fine on a fraud basis; banning who lives with whom isn't.
Of course the slippery slope idea seems absurd (and for the sake of my comment, it was), but this debate would have seemed absurd fifty years ago. The arrogance of so-called "modern" society is that the way things are now are somehow superior, self-evident and intuitive.
A big part of my issue with this subject earlier in this thread is the idea that as much as it seems we have the "right" to do just about everything we dang well please, "rights" are really the result of common culture rather than scientific conclusion. Let's get past this liberal flag-waving and fairness fantasy that does not exist, shall we? We allow abortion but can jail a pregnant woman for drinking alcohol. Why? Not because of science, but because a child with fetal alcohol syndrome will put a drain on society's resources.
Bottom-line, it's not about values. It's about me, me, mine, mine, more, more, more.
How is marriage ever a "right"? I've read the Constutution quite closely, and it doesn't say a thing about it. If we were talking about denying people the right to act your point would be made, which is why i am against sodomy laws. But this moral fury over making sure everyone who contributes to society gets their fair share is wonderful doctrine, but it never exists, nor should it.
Plenty of my money serves groups and people and issues I will never experience. Plenty of my money funds issues I oppose and groups I disagree with. My tax money is, right now, basically going to just about everybody else. I'm happy as all that gay people contribute, but this is a fundimental issue of the definition of marriage, and opponents believe that homosexuality is not consistent with that definition.
I can "define" myself as a female and get the reduced price during Happy Hour. It doesn't make me a girl, and it sure doesn't require the place to change their policy just because I make a stink over it.
Regardless if you don't like or agree with one's motives for their support or opposition to an issue, the simple fact is that everyone has the right to it. And there has not been enough evidence to support a practice that has only become vogue in the last thirty years or so. There is little long-term evidence, and frankly this assumption that it's harmless and inconsequential is exactly the problem.
You may not agree with the criteria, but it doesn't make it wrong.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is marriage ever a "right"? I've read the Constutution quite closely, and it doesn't say a thing about it.
"Rights" does not simply mean Constitutional rights. Rights are created at law all the time. I have a right to receive my paycheck if I do the work required. The employer has the right to fire me if if he follows applicable law. You have the right to post here - until OSC decides you don't.
The Constitution provides a floor for rights, not a ceiling. I oppose a judicial solution this, quite vehemently, but that doesn't mean I think it's OK to create an inherently unfair system.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The arrogance of so-called "modern" society is that the way things are now are somehow superior, self-evident and intuitive.
All societies feel this way at some point or another, often at the same time that they yearn for the past. Part of being human, really. It is, however, equally arrogant and unsubstantiated that just because something has been done in the past, that such is how it's always been, that it is right, fair, effective, or even worthwhile.
quote:A big part of my issue with this subject earlier in this thread is the idea that as much as it seems we have the "right" to do just about everything we dang well please, "rights" are really the result of common culture rather than scientific conclusion.
The fact is, we do have the right to do just about what we dang well please, so long as it does not infringe on anyone else's rights. More or less all of our proscriptions by law are enforced and legislated to prevent one person from harming another, or the community.
quote:We allow abortion but can jail a pregnant woman for drinking alcohol. Why? Not because of science, but because a child with fetal alcohol syndrome will put a drain on society's resources.
You're wrong. We punish 'mothers' who drink while pregnant because they are deliberately and over a period of time inflicting harm on a child-to-be. Setting aside the inconsistencies with abortion that you appropriately pointed out, that child has the right not to be made a FAS baby.
We also do it because science has proven that drinking more than just a little during pregnancy harms a child.
Frankly I think you're judging Americans unfairly if you think they'd place "because it'll end up costing me money" at the top of the list as to why that sort of thing is criminal.
quote:How is marriage ever a "right"? I've read the Constutution quite closely, and it doesn't say a thing about it. If we were talking about denying people the right to act your point would be made, which is why i am against sodomy laws. But this moral fury over making sure everyone who contributes to society gets their fair share is wonderful doctrine, but it never exists, nor should it.
Dagonee quite correctly pointed out that the Constitution is not the ceiling of our rights. Just as even though the Bible does not mention phones, cars, the Internet, airplanes, and those things are not unChristian, just because the Constitution does not specifically include marriage as a right of all citizens does not mean that it is not, in fact, a right.
I'm sorry, you'll have to do better than that to make homosexuals jump through hoops you create to enjoy financial and legal protections that you do. That's what's at issue here, Estavares. A legal marriage in the United States of America is not just a religious ceremony, it quite explicitly grants legal and economic benefits and protections.
Just like 18 yr olds should have the right to vote if they can be drafted, homosexuals should enjoy the same opportunities as heterosexuals because they contribute. That's not some whimsical fanciful liberal doctrine (and frankly it's amusing that I'm being equated with a liberal flag-waver:) ), that's just simple justice.
They aren't hurting you, except for your sensibilities. Their money is as green, their vote counts for as much, and they bleed red on a battlefield just as well as you do. They should be accorded the same opportunities and protections as you are, Estavares. Your only justifications for denying them that are religious and/or based on uncertain sociological and psychological evidence. You should not be permitted to thrust the burden of proof onto them to prove that their lifestyles aren't harmful. Innocent until proven guilty.
quote:Plenty of my money serves groups and people and issues I will never experience. Plenty of my money funds issues I oppose and groups I disagree with. My tax money is, right now, basically going to just about everybody else. I'm happy as all that gay people contribute, but this is a fundimental issue of the definition of marriage, and opponents believe that homosexuality is not consistent with that definition.
Yes, and you have a say in how those tax dollars are spent. That's part of the deal you make by being an American. Why, exactly, are you happy that gay people contribute? It seems to me that if I were gay, I'd be pretty pissed off about it. Not as pissed as, say, a black man in the 50s, but upset nonetheless, and on the same level.
The definition of marriage in legal terms has nothing to do with the definition of marriage in religious terms, Estavares.
quote:Regardless if you don't like or agree with one's motives for their support or opposition to an issue, the simple fact is that everyone has the right to it. And there has not been enough evidence to support a practice that has only become vogue in the last thirty years or so. There is little long-term evidence, and frankly this assumption that it's harmless and inconsequential is exactly the problem.
Yes, I know everyone has a right to their opinion. Your opinion, however, reduces a minority of people in this nation to second-class citizens.
I think you're very, very seriously mistaken that you think homosexuality has just come into the vogue in the past thirty years ago. All over the world, throughout human history, it's been a practice humans have engaged in, for better or worse. Even in America, since its inception. But until very recently, a homosexual who wasn't closetted in America faced almost certain death or mutiliation. Happily that likelihood has decreased in the past three decades.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: How is marriage ever a "right"? I've read the Constutution quite closely, and it doesn't say a thing about it.
Oh, come now. The Constitution absolutely does grant all citizens equal rights under the law. The Constitution does not empower the government to tax us in order to give goodies to a favored group, but the government nevertheless gives perqs to married couples.
Well, fine, then. The government can't decide, on the basis of a particular religious point of view, that my brother and his wife are entitled to these perqs, and I and my partner are not.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: If we were talking about denying people the right to act your point would be made, which is why i am against sodomy laws. But this moral fury over making sure everyone who contributes to society gets their fair share is wonderful doctrine, but it never exists, nor should it.
I disagree.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Plenty of my money serves groups and people and issues I will never experience. Plenty of my money funds issues I oppose and groups I disagree with. My tax money is, right now, basically going to just about everybody else. I'm happy as all that gay people contribute, but this is a fundimental issue of the definition of marriage, and opponents believe that homosexuality is not consistent with that definition.
Neither was miscegenation in its time. But the basic principle in the US is that the burden of proof is, and should be, on those who wish to deny equity to some. And when laws against interracial marriage were done away with, it wasn't necessary to "prove" that interracial marriage was harmless, or that it fit the definition of marriage. Nor should it be in this case. Once a flaw in our system is pointed out, appropriate action should be taken. In this case, that means allowing couples who aren't of the opposite sex to wed anyway.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I can "define" myself as a female and get the reduced price during Happy Hour. It doesn't make me a girl, and it sure doesn't require the place to change their policy just because I make a stink over it.
Well, if you define yourself as female to the extent of making that change legal, it actually does.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Regardless if you don't like or agree with one's motives for their support or opposition to an issue, the simple fact is that everyone has the right to it.
Everyone has the right to opine that I should be denied the rights given to my brother. That doesn't mean they have the right to actually deprive me of those rights.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: And there has not been enough evidence to support a practice that has only become vogue in the last thirty years or so.
There doesn't need to be. The burden of proof is on those seeking to deny equal rights.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: There is little long-term evidence, and frankly this assumption that it's harmless and inconsequential is exactly the problem.
You may not agree with the criteria, but it doesn't make it wrong.
You can't just say, "Gee, I think same sex marriage is icky, so let's continue to deny it until they manage to prove that it isn't icky." That's ludicrous.
I've learned to fight one, maybe two opponents at once, and my jujitsu skills are marginal, but an overwhelming pummelling by liberals ain't my idea of fair play.
I mean, were the bats and spiked chains really necessary?
quote:Originally posted by estavares: It makes sense at first, but not caring about how God thinks is where the rift exists. People DO consider God's will higher than anything else.
Well, some people do. And some people who consider God's will higher than anything else disagree with you about what God's will is.
That's what the non-establishment clause is about, estavares. You don't get to force your religious definitions on other people.
I've seen how you've been labeling everything that disagrees with one set of religious views as "anti-religious". That's dishonest.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: And granting legal and civil acceptance to an immoral lifestyle, in their opinion, is in full opposition of what promotes the means to a stable, healthy society.
I'll ask you what I asked Puppy. If Catholics were the majority in this country, would you be cool with them making divorce illegal and remarriage prosecutable under bigamy statutes?
See, the difference between laws and the Constitution is that the Constitution contains things that aren't supposed to be up to a simple majority. Because we all know how easily some of those things can be corrupted.
Religion is high on that list, and for good reason. Too many Christians don't get that the US is different. That this is one place where they aren't allowed to rule others with their religion. It's hard for them to swallow, because, as we all know, the history of Western civilization for the past umpteen centuries is all about attempts to use Christianity as a bludgeon to pummel everyone else with.
You can't do that here.
It doesn't matter how much you want to; you can't do that here.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: This idea that we must rely only on short-term evidence is unrealistic at best, dangerous at worst. And this is not about denying anyone the right to live their life as they see fit. It's about getting a piece of a pie, especially when most of the slices are already available.
Evidence is only necessary on the part of those who want to deny someone their rights. Not on the part of those who are claiming their rights.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I figure if the barn doors open, then they open to everyone––polygamy, triads, concentual incest and any other alternative type of marriage should have legal status. Why stop there?
Lame. There were slippery slopers who claimed that if whites and blacks could marry, it'd lead to whites marrying chimps. Hasn't happened yet.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I know I'm setting myself up here, but I need to pipe in...
quote: All that means to me as far as the issue of same-sex marriage is this: if you cannot prove it is harmful to parties other than the couple to be wed, then I believe equal rights, protections, and responsibilities simply must be applied to homosexuals in the same way I know 2+2=4. It's an obvious, as plain as the nose on your face application of equal protection under the law.
You've pretty much hit the nail on the head on the crux of the problem. It seems a very reasonable request at first glance, and I can see why people would be in favor of it.
The problem I see is two-fold. First, this issue is so heavily influenced by personal bias that studies are immediately accepted or dismissed based on if their conclusions match one's beliefs. Can this issue ever really be "proven"?
Why do you think it needs to be? Barring proof that it's harmful, the principle of equality in this country requires a presumption of no harm, no foul.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: With that kind of subjectivity, especially when we're dealing with a decade's worth of studies against hundreds of years of status quo, I find it both irresponsible and dangerous to start screwing around with such a huge social construct.
There's no power to a status quo. Certainly none that overrides the preeminent principle upon which this country was founded. When we come upon an area in which those principles are not being respected, the proper response is to fix it. Not to demand that the victims of discrimination "prove" that they shouldn't be discriminated against.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Second, Squick brings up a good point about making a separation between religious belief and scientific integrity. But the problem is that you can't in this regard. Making religion a second or third class citizen is contrary to the very notion of equal representation.
No one is talking about any such thing. In fact, religion isn't a citizen at all. And in further fact, there's no such thing as a monolithic thing called "religion". There are religions. Plural. Hell, my religion says that Christianty bears the same relation to Judaism that Mr. Hyde did to Dr. Jeckyl. Aren't you lucky that we aren't entitled to create laws based on that.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: We take all perspectives into consideration--scientific study, status quo, personal belief, religious thought, casual opinion--when laws are changed. This arrogant presumption that religion has no place reveals a level of bigotry often pronounced on others.
Religion is far more easily abused than those other perspectives. That's precisely why it isn't left to lawmakers to operate in that realm the way they can in others. The past 2000 years have shown us what we can expect from certain religions when they take power. It's not pretty for the rest of us.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I have always been of the belief that such change ought to be the responsibility and accountability of the people. Not government. Not the courts. And everyone on all sides of this debate has a right to cast their vote. Both sides feel the other is morally and ethically wrong, and I seriously doubt most of them will cite a study when they cast their vote.
You don't have the right to deny me my rights because of an opinion. You bear a burden of proof. And if the only support you can bring for denying me the same rights you have is that your religion says so, then you have no admissible support whatsoever.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I've learned to fight one, maybe two opponents at once, and my jujitsu skills are marginal, but an overwhelming pummelling by liberals ain't my idea of fair play.
"Liberals." Heh. Boy, are you in for a surprise. If there's one thing I'm not, it's a liberal. Except, of course, in the sense of supporting liberty. But then, libertarian is probably a better term for that.
The fact that I'm gay doesn't make me a liberal, sonny. Not by a long shot.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I mean, were the bats and spiked chains really necessary?
quote:I've learned to fight one, maybe two opponents at once, and my jujitsu skills are marginal, but an overwhelming pummelling by liberals ain't my idea of fair play.
Hehehehehe. Rakeesh, we're liberals now!
(starLisa, I don't know enough about your political views, but if applicable, two of those laughing heads are for you. If not, Rak and I will just have three each.)
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, called dishonest AND lame. The sharp, pointing wit on this thread continues to amaze--especially when I already labeled my slippery slope "absurd."
There is a difference between between anti-religious and calling people on their bias of denying religion as a basis for action. I've never accused anyone of being anti-religious--what I find hypocritical is that one belief system is allowed full reign, protected under the Constitution, and another is somethered by half-baked attempts to pull the "church vs state" concept which has little, to nothing to do with this issue.
What proof does anyone have that a specific religion would be promoted by banning equal benefits to gay couples? As far as I understand it, every major religion condemns homosexuality, regardless of all the justification and choosing not to ascribe to that particular doctrine. I could be Baptist, LDS, Muslim, Jewish or Nothing At All and still believe it to be a moral wrong. Some opponents use their religion as a basis, but to presume it's the ONLY motive shows a narrow, demonizing point of view that's just as insulting.
The Constitution protects ANY major belief system from dominating the other; that's the whole notion of equal representation. Like I've said before, I think this issue ought to be the people amending their state constitutions to decide this issue once and for all. Gay marriage was never implied or inherent when any constitution was drafted because the very notion was beyond thought a long time ago.
And BTW, the burden of proof is on those seeking to change the status quo. Let's be clear about this. This is an attempt to officially change a major social construct and you think the status quo has to PROVE it's the best way? What kind of smart-aleck bully tactic is that? Thousands of years of proof versus a few years of studies?
Wow. I'm enjoying a lively debate and you have to get all personal. You certainly can't be considered conservative so insert whatever moniker best describes you.
posted
One bit of insight I've gleaned from this discussion/debate/gripefest is that our society has taken male/female relationships pretty much for granted. It's been the overall accepted means (with the exception, of course) of a family structure, foundation of a family, and the primary means to impart values and tradition upon the next generation.
So the concept of "proven" means that it's basically worked since whatever beginning one accepts. It's like demanding that we breathe water instead of air; there's not a heck of a lot of studies on the subject in general, because it's just an accepted notion that air breathing is the norm.
My thought is that not every change is good, and not every status quo is good, but something so monumental as those changes being proposed ought to be made by more than just because we want it.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, letting gays and lesbians is NOT going to destroy or change the structure in any way. People, whether you nag or cajole them or not will get married, have babies, divorce, possibly abandon their kids, have healthy relationships no matter how many gays get married or have civil ceremonies, or whatever. Life will go on! Focusing on this so-called homosexual threat just gives politicians a way to rally up voters and it distracts from the REAL problems that families face that many people refuse to deal with. Especially politicians. Makes no damn sense to go on and on about gay marriage when there are families out there that can't even support themselves on 3 jobs!
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So the concept of "proven" means that it's basically worked since whatever beginning one accepts.
I'm not sure I'm willing to grant this. The structure of marriage has changed dramatically throughout human history, and has even changed dramatically in just the last two hundred years. The one thing that's been consistent is that it's biologically necessary for a man and a woman to get together to produce a child -- but pretty much everything else was considered negotiable.
In other words, you're assuming too much: namely, that the American model of marriage that exists today (or existed in the 1940s) is the model that has been "proven" over the last six thousand years, and also that what its existence has "proven" is in some way a direct consequence of heterosexual marriage and not merely other social strictures.
I'm not willing to take either of these as givens.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Wow. I'm enjoying a lively debate and you have to get all personal. You certainly can't be considered conservative so insert whatever moniker best describes you.
Sheesh.
I most certainly can be called conservative, and that's precisely what I am. What, I can't be conservative because I'm gay? That's the litmus test? Or is it because I'm not a Christian?
You need to get out more. Honestly. I voted for Reagan, Perot and Bush (Jr.). I wouldn't walk out my front door wearing slacks or a sleeveless shirt, because it's contrary to the laws of modesty in my religion.
You think you're religious? Sure. I don't eat or drink anything without making sure that it conforms to all of God's laws and without first saying a special prayer, which differs depending on the type of food. There's a prayer after eating as well, and again, that differs depending on the type of food.
I was crazy excited that I won free tickets to see Batman Begins before it actually opened in theaters. And in Imax, to boot. Until I realized that the showing was going to be on a Jewish holiday, which commemorates God's revelation at Mount Sinai, and on which we're not allowed to do certain things. So I missed it.
Then my brother (not religious) invited me to a Neil Diamond concert with him and his wife. He and I had gone with a friend to see Diamond in concert when we were younger. And my brother and I have had some difficulties between us over the past few years. So it was really heartening to be invited like that.
But then I remembered that right now, we're in the middle of a three week quasi-mourning period in which we don't go to see concerts and the like. So I had to say no.
Yeah, I don't have a lot of trouble abiding by God's word, and I have little to no patience for the knee jerk liberal crowd out there.
I don't think abortion is murder (mostly because God says so), but I do think it's forbidden except for cases in which the mother's life is threatened. Also because God says so.
So the nuts who blow up abortion clinics think I'm liberal scum, and the shrill "we can do whatever the hell we want" crowd that think abortion is a form of birth control think I'm a jackbooted fascist Nazi.
Personally, I don't give a cr*p. But what bugs me is when someone is clearly lumping me in with a crowd that I obviously don't belong to, purely because I'm gay. That's bigotry.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've learned to fight one, maybe two opponents at once, and my jujitsu skills are marginal, but an overwhelming pummelling by liberals ain't my idea of fair play.
Hehehehehe. Rakeesh, we're liberals now!
(starLisa, I don't know enough about your political views, but if applicable, two of those laughing heads are for you. If not, Rak and I will just have three each.)
<grin> Well, you probably know now. Thanks for the heads.
quote:You think you're religious? Sure. I don't eat or drink anything without making sure that it conforms to all of God's laws and without first saying a special prayer, which differs depending on the type of food. There's a prayer after eating as well, and again, that differs depending on the type of food.
And you brag about it, too, so clearly you must be Really Religious (tm). If it just comes down to doing awkward stuff because you think your god tells you to, aren't all those suicide cults still more religious than you are? Certainly they've really proved their devotion, not to mention being poster examples of evolution in action.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Now you call me a bigot. It just keeps getting better! You need to stop jumping to conclusions and, it sounds like, so do I.
_________
Tom:
I see what you're saying, but that isn't necessarily true. The history of family, especially in regards to bond pairs, has had its alternatives...but time and time again it returned to a basic male/female construct in most major civilizations over the last ten thousand years or so.
Granted that played out varied widely, and what we deem as marriage today is much different than, say, among the Aztecs or ancient Chinese. But we're talking about a major shift (and possible legal recognition) of something much different, regardless of the soothsayers who claim it's exactly the same.
In all my studies I'm not familiar with any major civilization where homosexual bonds were the core form of family and considered on par with male/female pairings. Obviously some of the Ancient Greeks dallied from time to time, and some East Indies tribes practiced it to the point of extinction, but I'm not aware of any historical situation that quite rivals this current debate.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Yeah, I don't have a lot of trouble abiding by God's word
I've been avoiding posting in this thread, because I have no real interest in being part of the latest iteration of this endlessly debated topic.
However, I have to ask. How do you reconcile the way you live -- publicly flaunting your violation of a pretty significant prohibition -- with "I don't have a lot of trouble abiding by God's word"? I am really not trying to be snarky. I simply cannot wrap my head around the concept.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been away for a while, and I really don't feel like I can catch up with where this debate has gone, SO ... I'll just answer a few posts that were directed at me a page or so ago ...
Lisa, most of your points are not things I disagree with. I don't think that all religious people are shining paragons of virtue, nor do I think that all homosexuals or atheists are hedonistic pigs We've got both types of people in both camps. My main point in that post was simply that religion should not be discounted or marginalized because it has a unique ability to inspire people to make positive choices that they would not otherwise make. It doesn't always work, and it has worked LESS and LESS as our society has valued religion less and less.
However, Squick surprises me in a later post, when he (as the person on this board who is MOST touchy about people misrepresenting his implications, who holds people to reading only the precise, literal wording of his posts, and who refuses to even acknowledge the idea that his words might have connotations that he should be responsible for) misrepresents my position about "teh past"
I never singled out "the fifties" as some kind of golden age. Every decade has had its failures and its victories. America in the fifties was segregated, but that was also when we laid the groundwork for the Civil Rights movement. There were a lot of bad marriages, but there were also a lot of good ones. It may be foolish to idealize a "golden age", but it is no less foolish to demonize a decade as a "dark age" and focus only on its failings, rejecting even the things that it did well.
We have developed a level of sophistication and openness about sex and fairness between the sexes in this country that is unprecedented in America's history, and in some ways, throughout world history. If we were to combine those virtues with the virtues of fidelity and commitment to marriage that our culture possessed in the past, we might be able to do much BETTER than either decade ever could.
What I mean when I talk about what we've lost is that we should make sure we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have made a lot of good progress over the past several decades ... but it is hardly time well-spent if simultaneously we throw out a lot of good and valuable parts of our culture. If we do that without some level of restraint and care, we risk ending up in a position that is no better than where we started -- just different.
quote:But consider: gay and lesbian couples can't have children by accident. It's impossible. When we do, it's because we've thought it through and planned everything.
That is absolutely true. But it kind of serves as a reason to focus our marriage customs on heterosexual pairings It is heterosexual couples, after all, who are the baby factories, whether they want to be or not. They are the ones who NEED societal institutions to hold them in their ever-growing families, and to teach them restraint before commitment Not that THAT idea means anything anymore for most of the country. Even among many religious people, it is now thought of as unreasonable to expect a heterosexual couple to remain chaste until they have established a solid, committed foundation for their families. Have we simply given up on the idea that people can control their own actions?
quote:But... whose religion? I have a former friend who is Wiccan. Does her religion deserve less protection from the law than yours or mine?
Have I ever suggested that one religion should be protected above another? Heck, if the extreme end of the Christian Right had their way, my religion would be one of the first ones outlawed
quote:Don't assume that "religious" and "gay" are so separate. And I'd be happy with civil unions if they were supported on a federal level, and if they carried 100% of the rights and responsibilities of federally recognized marriage. I won't quibble about the word. But people with a Vermont civil union can't file their taxes jointly. Neither can married couples in Massachussetts.
Then we agree I don't think that "civil unions" should be second class in any way. I simply think that by establishing a second terminology, we free some religious groups in this country to more effectively do their jobs and transmit their values without needing to constantly redefine their terms and fight against a competing version of the same institution.
quote:Wow. That seems a little bitter. Why would anyone want to gloat?
Note that that "gloating" comment wasn't directed at you Hang around Squick a little longer, and you'll see where I get the edge in my voice.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You think you're religious? Sure. I don't eat or drink anything without making sure that it conforms to all of God's laws and without first saying a special prayer, which differs depending on the type of food. There's a prayer after eating as well, and again, that differs depending on the type of food.
And you brag about it, too, so clearly you must be Really Religious (tm).
My point was that when faced with what God wants me to do and what I might prefer to do, I do what God wants. I was illustrating that because the context seemed to require it.
In fact, in Judaism, we have a saying:
Make God's will your will, so that He will do your will as His will. --Chapters of Principles
The idea is to actively work to change your own values to conform to those that God wants. The result is that when God does His will, as He always does, you'll be getting what you want.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If it just comes down to doing awkward stuff because you think your god tells you to, aren't all those suicide cults still more religious than you are? Certainly they've really proved their devotion, not to mention being poster examples of evolution in action.
Dude, I hardly think that God's word is comparable to suicide cults. He made the world, He gets to make the rules. I have no problem with that.
But I don't care what you think about my religion. The point is that despite my commitment to it, I would never try and force its standards into the law here in the US. That doesn't make me a liberal; it makes me respectful of the purposes for which this country was founded.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Now you call me a bigot. It just keeps getting better! You need to stop jumping to conclusions and, it sounds like, so do I.
Thanks. And maybe I was wrong, too. I was disturbed by your assumption that I was a liberal, and concluded that it was due to my being gay. If I was wrong, I apologize.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Yeah, I don't have a lot of trouble abiding by God's word
I've been avoiding posting in this thread, because I have no real interest in being part of the latest iteration of this endlessly debated topic.
However, I have to ask. How do you reconcile the way you live -- publicly flaunting your violation of a pretty significant prohibition -- with "I don't have a lot of trouble abiding by God's word"? I am really not trying to be snarky. I simply cannot wrap my head around the concept.
Hi Rivka. From your name, I assume you're Jewish? Would you mind telling me what that "pretty significant prohibition" is? I'm not trying to be cute; I just think you may be jumping to conclusions.
The prohibition in the Torah is specific to anal sex between men. The extension of that to other intimacies between men, well, it's a dispute between Maimonides and Nachmanides as to whether it's a rabbinic prohibition or a Sinaitic one. Either way, it's a prohibition.
In the case of women, it's a whole other issue. The verses that are so often quoted in the Torah have absolutely not one thing to do with two women. That said, there is a short discussion in the Talmud (Yevamot 76a) where it was necessary to bring an example of a law that was not decided according to Rav Huna, a major rabbinical figure.
The example was Rav Huna ruling that women who engage in imitation of heterosexual intercourse become disqualified from being able to be married to a Kohen (priest). The Talmud notes that this isn't the law, and that such behavior is "mere lewdness".
Maimonides later linked this discussion with a source that talks about the acts of the Egyptians, which we're commanded not to emulate. As a result, he determined that the act characterized in the Talmud as "mere lewdness" is an actual prohibition.
The problem is one of translation. Most English translations of the term nashim ha-mesollelot come out as something like "lesbianism" or "lesbian acts". But that's merely a convenient way to translate. It's like translating tum'ah and taharah as "purity" and "impurity". It's done, but only because translations are understood to be approximations of the original, and never an exact representation of the original. If you want to know what the Torah or rabbinical literature really say, you need to look in the original.
One prominent rebbetzin (that's a rabbi's wife, for those of you who don't know) told someone I know that the thing that's prohibited is tribadism, or laying together in what's called the "missionary position".
Now... my partner and I own a house together. Is there something about that you think is wrong? We are raising our daughter together. Legally, we are both her parents. Is there something you think we're violating in Jewish law by raising her? We are sending her to an Orthodox day school in the fall, when she starts kindergarten.
I'm not sure what it is that we're supposedly transgressing. Could you elaborate, please?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am indeed Jewish (and Orthodox, for that matter).
I am familiar with all the arguments you just made. I happen to disagree with several of your conclusions. Moreover, I am not familiar with any rabbanim (that I would consider mainstream) who agree with them.
I am not interested in debating the point. But you answered my question, thanks.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
