quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think that if there were a way for homosexual couples to obtain a contract that gave them all the same legal rights as a married couple, everybody could live with that solution. People on the extremes would be dissatisfied on both sides, but ... I normally consider that to be a good thing
I agree about frustrating the lunatic fringes.
Have any lawyers come up with a set of standard contracts that confer the same rights and obligations as heterosexual marriage, or most of them, without government sanction or using the word "marriage"?
In previous gay marriage threads I remember people claiming it would cost 1000s of dollars in legal fees to achieve it.
Couldn't some boilerplate contracts with options be written up? Or legal software? Turbometro?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm glad to know that i can openly state my opinion and be passionate about an issue that is so heated and still end up with the son of my favorite writer respecting my point of view and even agreeing with me. you definitely take after your father in your willingness to take the good with the bad. i also appreciate that you seem to respect someone who would argue with you knowing you're related to someone i admire the talents of so much.
and i would be more than happy to call you my friend. now, if you could just convince whoever needs convincing to get your dad to a book signing in houston, that'd be great. c'mon, you know you've got the magik wand to get that done. Posts: 52 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for the info. I'm a "big picture' kind of guy, so that perspective helps. Though it's unfortunate you consider my form of spirituality "naive" I can better understand why you approach your religion like a scientist––proof before faith.
I thought I'd only called thinking that we ever do anything independent from outside influence "naive".
But you should know that not all Orthodox Jews share my approach to that extent. Many do operate on the basis of what we call emunah peshutah, which is the equivalent of the English word "faith".
Me, I'm a programmer, and I think analytically. And I lack whatever some people have that makes them want some higher power out there.
I remember a few years after becoming religious talking to my father on the telephone. I was raised in a Jewish home, but Judaism was just a thing that came up at life cycle events and the like. He said to me something like, "I just don't get it. You have the worst authority problem I have ever seen in my life. Of all the things you could possibly have done, you became Orthodox?"
And he was right. I have a major problem with authority. I think it stems from the first time I was clearly and objectively right when a teacher or parent was clearly and objectively wrong. <grin> I think I would have preferred a world without God; I just don't think it is.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Interesting...
Why was it so funny I asked that question? Is it in context with the discussion?
No... I post on a newsgroup sometimes, and there's a guy there who isn't Orthodox himself, who is constantly trying to claim that the default position in Orthodoxy is that everything is forbidden until permitted. Just that day, he'd started up again, so when you asked:
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I take it then your obedience to God is based on if behavior is allowed (or not) in the Torah. If it isn't specific, then it's allowed? Is that an accurate assessment?
It just struck my funny bone.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I don't believe I asked for your "help".
I know you didn't, but the first step is to realise that you have a problem.
Hmm... smarmy and condescending. You're very unlike most of the regular posters here, aren't you.
I don't mind arrogance, personally. It'd probably be a little hypocritical if I did. But misplaced and unearned arrogance just comes across as a little childish.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I am rather interested in this trick of your god's with not changing the laws. Kind of like a constitution, in a way.
Quite.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Like a constitution, though, it is easy for the state authority to circumvent if the army is on their side.
Not really. The system has multiple redundancy to an incredibly high degree. And Jews are stubborn. That stiffnecked thing works both ways. Sneaking changes by is untenable.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: All Yahweh needs to do is remove that commandment from the books, and from the memories of the people, and then send in a prophet. Easy for an omnipotent being, yes?
<shrug> We're talking about an omnipotent being who isn't constrained by time. To Whom today, yesterday and tomorrow have no real meaning. If He wanted things to be different, He could have made them different to begin with.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: By the way, do you also believe that these tidbits of the books of Moses haven't changed either?
Correct. As I told you, the Pentateuch is not the source of our laws. It is a vital part of the Torah, but its role in the Jewish legal system is more akin to a mnemonic, or an anchor, which makes recalling the law easier.
For example, "An eye for an eye" never meant literal lex talionis. The law was about several forms of monetary compensation, and the language of eye, tooth, burn, etc., made it easier to remember the various types of compensation required. Actual compensation, compensation for distress caused, compensation for time lost, compensation for embarrassment, etc.
The same applies to your examples below. A married woman who has sex with a man other than her husband has committed adultery. The man has, as well, in equal part. That's a capital crime in Jewish law. The "burnt with fire" describes one of the four methods of capital punishment, which is actually different from the Jean d'Arc image you might have.
That said, capital punishment is extraordinarily rare under Jewish law. The person needs to be warned, with at least two witnesses present, that he or she is about to violate a Torah prohibition that carries the death penalty. The warning has to be repeated. In both cases, the person has to indicate that he or she has understood the warning and is going to do it anyway.
The same two witnesses (I think they have to be the same two; I'm not 100% sure) have to actually see him or her committing the act and testify to it before a court of at least 23 judges. Don't get me started on the requirements for those judges.
Then the judges have to vote in favor of the punishment. But it has to be more than a majority of one, and if it's unanimous, the perp is aquitted. The theory being that if you get a 23 out of 23 vote, there's likely to be some bias going on.
Yeah... capital punishment in Judaism is an awful lot like suicide.
Oh, and it can only be meted out when the court system is fully up and running, with the high court (the Sanhedrin) meeting in its quarters on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, adjacent to the Temple.
Also? The quotes you mentioned don't refer to what you probably think they do.
See, one of the reasons it's good that the bulk of the Torah isn't written is that, well, look at the way in which the written Bible was misused and misinterpreted by Christianity. Thank God all they had to work with was the smaller part of the whole.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog: delusional, it's anti-Christian attitudes like yours, at least in part, that make many Christians hesitate before signing on to your crusade.
Of course, I'm sure you realize the difference between a perspective and any given advocate of that perspective, right? I mean, you don't see Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps as representing your position, do you?
Not that I'm comparing delusional to Phelps, but there's a reason why ad hominem is a fallacy.
I think many people are too eager to use broadsides such as delusional's as an excuse to do something they had already decided to do.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: In 3 days, this thread will be 4 months old!
Why no possibility of resolution? I think it's because gay marriage proponents say they want one thing (equality) but ask for something else (approval);
Really. Thanks, Will B. And here I was thinking that I knew what I actually wanted. What would I have done if you hadn't come along to explain to me what I actually wanted? Gosh, you're my hero!
quote:Originally posted by Will B: and one species of opponents, social conservatives, don't want to give an inch but can't articulate a reason proponents accept.
quote:...the government nor any religion has the right to say, "... WE CHOOSE to forbid you from binding yourself to this person you love."
If you believe this, D, why would you want to grant government this kind of authority?
Who does? I'd much rather get government out of the marriage biz.
Unfortunately, the government has seen fit to grant certain perqs to people who are considered married. And a government which is not allowed to adopt the position of a particular religion should not be allowed to discriminate in the granting of such perqs.
Sure, the government shouldn't be in the perqs biz at all. Protecting citizens from attacks internal and external and mediating disputes. That's the only legitimate role of governments to begin with. But so long as I'm being forced to pay for the perqs they give out, I'm not willing to be a second class citizen when it comes to receiving them.
quote:Originally posted by Will B: How is it freedom to be dependent on government sanction? Why not just let gay people marry, or whatever they want to call it, and forget the license?
Sounds good to me. Can my partner and I file our taxes jointly? Can we get the title on our house changed so that we share the protections of the "married couple" title? Hey, how about inheritance? Can we be allowed to inherit from one another without taxes the way straight married couples can?
My employer has domestic partner coverage on medical insurance. But the part for me is tax free, and the part for her is taxed. Can we get that changed? Or do you still think this is about approval?
Suppose one of us wasn't a US citizen. It's not the case, but I know people for whom it is. If one of us was male, the non-citizen would be able to claim citizenship on the basis of being married to a US citizen. Since we're both female, that's not an option.
I absolutely love people who tell me that it's all about trying to force "acceptance" on other people. The only "forcing" here is on the part of those who want to force their religious definitions into the law books.
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Because it isn't about anyone being forbidden to make a commitment. It's about some people wanting the government to mandate that others have to approve of their sexuality.
Nope. It's about your making me equal when it comes to paying into the pot, and unequal when it comes to getting back.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I should point out that pretty much every time I've confronted a gay-marriage opponent with specific instances when the lack of a sanctioned marriage causes difficulty for a gay couple (hospital visitation, inheritance, etc) ... universally, they've responded that the gay couple should get the same advantages as a heterosexual couple.
And yet, most of these people think that civil unions will actually provide these things. And then we have states like Michigan, where they just passed an amendment which made such things illegal, regardless of what they're called.
Geoff, it's easy to say that when you're having a conversation. But clearly, that doesn't extend to the ballot box.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: As far as I've seen, no one in the mainstream is trying to prevent homosexuals from pairing up, and no one wants them to suffer these horror-story disadvantages.
You really need to read the Federal Marriage Amendment, Geoff. Is the government out of the mainstream?
I believe you have a good heart. I think you just aren't able to understand what it's like to have to constantly fight to get half of what heterosexuals get in this country.
I'm glad, in a way. Because the only way you'd really be able to understand it would be to experience it. And I'm not the kind of person who likes to share the misery.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: ALL they want, from what I can see, is to keep the concept of "marriage" bound to the human mating/reproductive cycle, and not to relationships that fall outside that sphere.
And if your religion holds that this is important, that's great. Let your religion's definition of marriage be defined that way. You just aren't entitled to force that definition into the laws.
I'll take any word you want, Geoff. Honest. So long as there are absolutely zero distinctions made in law between the two. Not one.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think that if there were a way for homosexual couples to obtain a contract that gave them all the same legal rights as a married couple, everybody could live with that solution.
I sure could. Would, in fact. But it's not going to happen, because while you may not agree, the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage really are coming from the view of "Homosexuality is icky. Anything that would make life easier for homosexuals will simply encourage them."
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: People on the extremes would be dissatisfied on both sides, but ... I normally consider that to be a good thing
Me, too. I wish I had your relatively innocent view of the world.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I think that if there were a way for homosexual couples to obtain a contract that gave them all the same legal rights as a married couple, everybody could live with that solution. People on the extremes would be dissatisfied on both sides, but ... I normally consider that to be a good thing
I agree about frustrating the lunatic fringes.
Have any lawyers come up with a set of standard contracts that confer the same rights and obligations as heterosexual marriage, or most of them, without government sanction or using the word "marriage"?
In previous gay marriage threads I remember people claiming it would cost 1000s of dollars in legal fees to achieve it.
Couldn't some boilerplate contracts with options be written up? Or legal software? Turbometro?
Well, what do you mean by "government sanction"? For one thing, why should the government "sanction" your relationship and not mine?
But aside from that, do you think there's such a thing as a contract that would allow my partner and me to file our taxes jointly? Change the title on our home so that we are protected in the same way that a straight couple is?
There is no solution for this in contracts. Believe me, it's been looked into.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
How I took your "naive" comment is that I DO believe that spiritual confirmation can come from God independant from all influence. I have had many experiences when I have been prompted or guided in ways I had no previous knowledge, and I knew that it was divine guidance.
I don't consider that naive. I consider it a claim based on personal experience.
That being said, I'm curious as to a question I've asked time and time again, with no answer. One of my biggest issues with this subject is this demand that society must rewrite major social constructs simply because we want our way––all the while demanding that religious and/or moral thought must never have influence over government decisions. It's a double standard.
If equal benefits were the main issue here, then why is the concept of "civil unions" considered distasteful, especially when any legal benefits virtually match those found in traditional marriage? Because it's about being "second class citizens?" Why are civil unions dismissed?
What I'm hearing is that benefits are important, yes. But at the end of the day it's about getting the country to eat its brussel sprouts (with a smile) and making it admit it really, really likes them.
Any clarification and/or insight is always appreciated...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Have any lawyers come up with a set of standard contracts that confer the same rights and obligations as heterosexual marriage, or most of them, without government sanction or using the word "marriage"? In previous gay marriage threads I remember people claiming it would cost 1000s of dollars in legal fees to achieve it.
Morbo, off the top of my head, the following are not available as contract:
Marital communication privilege and spousal immunity.
Joint tax return filing.
Social Security survivorship.
Eligibility for partner's health plan (in some states, this is actually prohibited; in most others it's not required when spousal coverage is granted.)
As far as contracts go, many are not enforceable across state lines - particularly the ones that attempt to bind third parties, such as hospitals allowing visitation, etc.
How I took your "naive" comment is that I DO believe that spiritual confirmation can come from God independant from all influence. I have had many experiences when I have been prompted or guided in ways I had no previous knowledge, and I knew that it was divine guidance.
Oh. I guess I misunderstood. I would call that influence. I didn't realize that you meant influence other than divine.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: I don't consider that naive. I consider it a claim based on personal experience.
That being said, I'm curious as to a question I've asked time and time again, with no answer. One of my biggest issues with this subject is this demand that society must rewrite major social constructs simply because we want our way––all the while demanding that religious and/or moral thought must never have influence over government decisions. It's a double standard.
Yes and no. It's very clear that the founders had a double standard when it came to religion's influence over the body politic.
Estavares, honestly. Look at history. To take Christianity as an example, because that's the largest religious group in America, history is absolutely replete with examples of what happens when Christianity becomes a state religion. And it's not pretty for the rest of us.
I mean, the Pilgrims came to this country, fleeing religious persecution, right? That's what we learn in school. What they don't mention is that they weren't opposed to religious persecution at all. They just wanted to be the ones on top.
And the same could easily be true for any and all other religions, however sweet and peaceful they may seem when they're not running things. The problem is that religion brooks no argument. "God said so" is the last word in any religious argument, and it's been used to justify so much evil in the past that it simply can't be allowed into our laws.
I have no problem with "God said so", as I think I've made clear. I just have a problem forcing it on others, or having it forced on me by others. And ultimately, the defining characteristic of government is its ability to coerce people to obey rules.
When the United States of American came into being, there were many inequities that remained in law and custom, simply because people were so used to them that they passed beneath notice.
It wasn't legislation that created the general view that blacks were lesser beings. Sure, there were laws to that effect, but the laws followed the social premise. As our society has matured, we have, every time we've become cognizant of inequities that are enshrined in the system, taken steps to remediate them.
You know this. The fight over women being allowed to vote, for example. Good Lord! I mean, the fears of social upheaval and the destruction of the family and family values if women were permitted to vote were even more vociferous than the same fears about same-sex marriage are today. It hasn't been that long in this country since the question of whether women have souls was polite dinner conversation.
Now, the novel idea that women are adult human beings every bit as much as men are is so obvious to almost everyone that people have forgotten how fierce that struggle was.
The same thing happened with race. There are still people today who would disown a child for marrying someone of a different race. People who honestly think that it's immoral and unnatural to mix races.
This nation guarantees you the right to hold whatever opinions and moral stances you want. But it does not allow you to impose those beliefs on others.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: If equal benefits were the main issue here, then why is the concept of "civil unions" considered distasteful, especially when any legal benefits virtually match those found in traditional marriage?
"Virtually"? Please. They do nothing of the sort. Give me a civil union where the rights and responsibilities and protections are 100% identical to those granted to married couples, and I'll be happy to accept it. I don't care about the word. The reason I reject civil unions is that they are nowhere near 100%. I'm not willing to settle for even 99%, and civil unions are nowhere near that, either.
This is the problem, you see. When I mention that women get paid less, on the whole, for doing the same work as men, most people reply with, "Not any more." Or "But you've made real advances." Or "Ah, but men have to support their families." <groan>
If you refuse to recognize an inequity, you don't have to do anything about it. And you don't have to feel bad, either.
When civil unions are no less than marriages, give me a call.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: Because it's about being "second class citizens?" Why are civil unions dismissed?
Because they are half-baked, half-***ed, half-way solutions. For me, at least, it's not a question of semantics.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: What I'm hearing is that benefits are important, yes. But at the end of the day it's about getting the country to eat its brussel sprouts (with a smile) and making it admit it really, really likes them.
Any clarification and/or insight is always appreciated...
I'm a bit curious, Lisa. How do you think the Jews -- no matter how stiffnecked they might be -- would stop God from sneaking any changes by that He wanted to make?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'm a bit curious, Lisa. How do you think the Jews -- no matter how stiffnecked they might be -- would stop God from sneaking any changes by that He wanted to make?
Who said anything about that? I was referring to prophets or the like doing so. God gave us strict instructions to eliminate any prophet doing that. And He wasn't talking about nutbags on streetcorners; He was talking about genuine prophets. The real deal. Men or women who had proven themselves to be real communicators of God's will. If one of those tells us to do something that contradicts Jewish law, it's a sign that God is testing us or that the prophet is skewing the information he's getting.
But it's also a matter of consistency. God says that God doesn't lie. If He does, there isn't much we can do about it. And if He doesn't, then we figure any "changes" He'd want to make wouldn't need to be made, since He could have rigged things in the first place to have the outcome He wanted.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ohhh, wow. I just happened to be checking this thread at it was at 666 posts :gasp:! Alas! It was the newbie starLisa who got the coveted number, drat her! *shakes fist*
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Ohhh, wow. I just happened to be checking this thread at it was at 666 posts :gasp:! Alas! It was the newbie starLisa who got the coveted number, drat her! *shakes fist*
Two issues to discuss, then I'm off to write four papers for class...
First, your replies reveal the fundimental issue. Is a homosexual relationship on equal grounds with a heterosexual one? This thread has discussed that idea with yet more divisions––do we follow science alone? Should we discount spiritual and/or religious opinion at every level? What kind of evidence would be considered valid for both sides?
There is a fine line here because opponents do not see this as an issue of equality or "civil rights." They do not equate this with gender or race. They see this as demanding the same benefits for something fundimentally different, often due (regardless of strong inclinations) to personal choice. It would be like me demanding the "Child" price at the movies simply because I feel youthful. I may feel and act that way, but I'm not. That's clearly a silly analogy, but it illustrates how this issue is perceived.
What it feels like is what you've already expressed––someone's forcing their beliefs down the country's throat. Churches are kept in check (as they should be), but lobbies fighting to change laws to fit their own convictions are given free reign? It's a double standard. Where does religion and personal conviction begin and end?
This bring up a good point; assuming a conviction's origins is more often wrong. That's why I get irritated by this broad assumption that those opposed to gay marriage do it to force religious beliefs down the country's throat or simply because they think homosexuality is "icky." That kind of simpilization is as inaccurate as presuming those for gay marriage are liberals
This discussion has caused our country to re-evaluate the concepts of marriage and family. That's a very healthy thing to happen. As as been more ably said before, I am far more worried about easy divorces, latch-key kids, far too many single-parent families, slap-on-the-hands to deadbeat parents and the overall displacing of the father's role in the home.
But this has just been a hoot to debate, and I've learned a whole heck of a lot...
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a fine line here because opponents do not see this as an issue of equality or "civil rights."
Actually, in the classic sense, this is precisely about civil rights. Traditionally, these were the right to vote, the right to enter into legally enforceable contracts, access to the courts to redress civil wrongs, right to have crimes committed against one prosecuted, right to a fair investigation and trial when accused of a crime, the right to serve on juries, etc. Basically, the right to receive the basic benefits afforded by the state to its citizens. It is distinct from a liberty, which is the right to perform an act without interference or penalty.
With Lawrence, the liberty half of the equation has been redressed. Unless Lawrence is subsequently limited in a way I can't see happening right now, a same sex couple can live together freely. What they can't do is receive the state benefits associated with that decision. What is now at stake is precisely a civil right as distinguished above: the right to government recognition, the right to sever the relationship with pre-determined property rules, the right to tenancy in common, the right to combine finances for tax purposes, etc.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect comrade estavares was using the words in the context of the sixties popular movement, rather than the narrow legal definition.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suspect so. I was attempting to point out that it's not really a matter of how one sees it: access to civil institutions is, by definition, a civil right. Somehow the word got caught up with equality and several important aspects of it were lost in the shuffle.
It's not a question of how one sees the issue. We are talking about civil rights. What we are discussing is whether the approriate decisional framework is best summed up as:
"Does adequate reason exist for not extending these civil rights to same-sex couples?"
or as
"Does adequate reason exist for extending these civil rights to same-sex couples?"
Dagonee P.S., the definition listed above isn't the strict legal defintition. It's more the classical philosophical definition.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men is right; sorry for the confusion.
Obviously this is an issue of a "civil right" but I meant making a connection to the civil rights movement and associating the homosexual issue being on par with minority and gender rights. My contention is that they are not on the same level for reasons said over and over again throughout this thread.
Connecting the two, in my opinion, is a clever tactic of those demanding change by forcing the status quo to justify its existence. On the contrary, the dissenting opinion usually has the burden of proof. In that regard, Dagonee, your questions are dead-on correct ones to ask.
The problem is that the criteria for answering these questions varies from group to group and, frankly, a consensus is gonna be tough. Both sides define "proof" in very different ways (even beyond simply science vs. religion), and both seem to think the other is inferior.
quote:Originally posted by estavares: King of Men is right; sorry for the confusion.
Obviously this is an issue of a "civil right" but I meant making a connection to the civil rights movement and associating the homosexual issue being on par with minority and gender rights. My contention is that they are not on the same level for reasons said over and over again throughout this thread.
Connecting the two, in my opinion, is a clever tactic of those demanding change by forcing the status quo to justify its existence. On the contrary, the dissenting opinion usually has the burden of proof.
Usually. But not always. And in a nation founded on the idea of individual liberty and equality under the law, the burden of proof is on anyone wishing to discriminate. Sometimes that burden can be met, but in this case, it can't.
No one had to "prove" that allowing women to vote wouldn't destroy the family. It was a struggle to make that change, but it was never a matter of proof. Merely a matter of people waking up to the basic inequity of the situation.
And the same thing was true of race. Has anyone ever "proven" anything in that area? What is there to be proven? Discrimination on the basis of race and gender and sexual orientation didn't come into being on the basis of proof. And eliminating those forms of discrimination doesn't require proof that women are adults, or that black people are human or that gay relationships are worthy.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with starLisa, unsurprisingly. Estavares, why should the dissenting opinion have to prove its validity to the status quo, other than the fact that the status quo is, well, the status quo?
Just because it's always been that way doesn't make it right. And your side (presuming you oppose SSM) needs more than "it's always been this way" to keep it going. And on the issue of threatening current traditions, well frankly heterosexuals do a whole helluva lot more threatening homosexuals than vice versa.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I agree with starLisa, unsurprisingly. Estavares, why should the dissenting opinion have to prove its validity to the status quo, other than the fact that the status quo is, well, the status quo?
Just because it's always been that way doesn't make it right. And your side (presuming you oppose SSM) needs more than "it's always been this way" to keep it going. And on the issue of threatening current traditions, well frankly heterosexuals do a whole helluva lot more threatening homosexuals than vice versa.
True that. Also, heterosexuals got rid of laws against adultery. If you want to talk about something "anti-family"...
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the status quo gets a presumption precisely because it is the status quo. But once a prima facie case is made for change, the presumption had served its purpose and is no longer operative. When the prima facie case is based on a denial of existing government benefits to a minority, a new presumption kicks in against the denial.
In this case, the showing has been made that the change will not affect the legal functioning of marriage for heterosexuals, and that identifiable couples suffer identifiable, concrete harms under the status quo. I've never seen the second part refuted at all.
So, reasons have been given for change. Make the case for denying same sex couples these benefits which can be provided at no cost to the legal system and no reduction in the legal institution's suitability to task.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
And thus we go back to the core problem here. Opponents do not see that the burden of proof has been fulfilled--and they don't see this as discrimination, because that means you're denying something to someone they inherently deserve from birth.
And when this issue is perceived as being fueled by abherrent behavior, all the raised fists won't change the core idea that you're trying to force a definition that can never exist, regardless of how much it feels like it. That's been OSC's contention from the start.
This presumption that it's been proven, especially when data is short-term and ripe with influence from advocacy groups, is false. To say it hasn't been refuted is based on the idea that all evidence for gay marriage is objective, while all evidence against it is subjective and political.
I mean come on, that never happens. Ever. We're all smart enough to know our science and statistics and understand that human behavior is tough to pin down, much less presume a truth after only a decade's worth of hard research.
I just think it's too early to call. I think it's premature to make a complete change. And since both sides are filled with indignation against the other, will this really be solved by studies and science and facts? It will be people discarding their initial values to move one direction or the other.
StaraLisa brings up a great point about adultry––I figure if marriage is easier to squirm out of than our mortgage or cell phone contract, gay marriage is the least of our concerns.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more point: Rakeesh made a great argument earlier about the idea of gay couples paying into the system and not getting back, and of all the arguments I've heard that makes the most sense to me.
I still think some kind of improved civil union could be a fine compromise, something that many (and not just gay couples) could use, but from the sound of things it has to be everything, or nothing.
I've no answer for a solution at this point, but I do love a good puzzler...
quote:Originally posted by estavares: And thus we go back to the core problem here. Opponents do not see that the burden of proof has been fulfilled
Dear God, spare me. Enough, already, okay? Pretty please? If you can honestly read what some of us have posted and continue to claim that there is a burden of proof to fulfill in the first place, then you're just not listening.
If you were to argue that, yes, there is such a burden of proof, we could argue the point, and think you'd fail to support it. But you aren't even doing that. You're just ignoring what you don't want to hear and repeating that the burden of proof hasn't been fulfilled.
quote:Opponents do not see that the burden of proof has been fulfilled--and they don't see this as discrimination, because that means you're denying something to someone they inherently deserve from birth.
That's not what discrimination means.
quote:This presumption that it's been proven, especially when data is short-term and ripe with influence from advocacy groups, is false. To say it hasn't been refuted is based on the idea that all evidence for gay marriage is objective, while all evidence against it is subjective and political.
I said there would be no repurcusssions to the legal aspects: no law about marriage would have to change at all. You cannot demonstrate one that will. If you want to raise social harm issues, then the burden of proof is on you to do so. And you can't just say, "I think X will happen." Back it up.
quote:I just think it's too early to call. I think it's premature to make a complete change.
OK, then answer me this: name one legal benefit or duty of marriage that should not apply to same sex couples willing to take on the duties and responsibility.
The first rule of debate is to agree on definitions, and that's a core problem here. When was marriage officially defined as simply a sexual relationship between two committed, consenting adults...regardless of gender? When did harm to "traditional" marriage constitute a burden of proof to justify gay marriage? Proponents MAKE that a burden of proof because it's easy to win; it's an absurd notion, and a handy distraction while acting as if somehow definitions have already been decided.
And please, spare me the "honest discourse" garbage as if I haven't read every single post and link from beginning to end and processed it. When was the research on the subject been announced as the final word on the matter? Instead every counter proof is dismissed for no reason other than bias, broad generalizations as to the motives of opponents are thrown about, and I've yet to see how homosexuality is on equal grounds with gender or race.
Honest discourse? Show me we're dealing with a universal definition here. But you can't. You want it to be, because it matters to you, but it's like scribbling out a word in the dictionary and writing in a new one and demanding we accept it. Sorry, but that doesn't wash.
So I ask the question again: When was marriage officially defined as simply a sexual relationship between two committed, consenting adults...regardless of gender? Isn't that the whole purpose of defining this in our state constitutions, even as we speak?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: When was marriage officially defined as simply a sexual relationship between two committed, consenting adults...regardless of gender?
I hasten to point out that a sexual relationship is not inherent to either definition of marriage, whereas committment is. Perhaps a more accurate definition would be "a lifelong committment between consenting adults?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Truem but if that was the case then I could be committed to my brother, or mother, or my best friend.
The line keeps getting redrawn and redrawn, and what was impossible a decade ago is now considered vogue. Where do we draw the line?
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
No, I'm asking which of the civil benefits associated with the legal institution of marriage should not be available to gay couples.
Forget for now that they are associated with marriage. You propose a civil union as an alternative. OK, let's get down to brass tacks. What rights and duties from marriage would you not include in the civil union.
No, I'm asking which of the civil benefits associated with the legal institution of marriage should not be available to gay couples.
Forget for now that they are associated with marriage. You propose a civil union as an alternative. OK, let's get down to brass tacks. What rights and duties from marriage would you not include in the civil union.
Just name one.
Let's make this easier. When you buy a house, there are different ways that the title can be written. I think it may differ from state to state, but here's how it is in Illinois.
Check out this page. My partner and I have joint tenancy on our home. We wanted tenancy by the entirety, but this is reserved for married couples only. It has extra protections against creditors, and requires the consent of both parties to sell any of the property.
Do you think a civil union should allow us to be tenants by the entirety? If not, why not?
Or check this out. It's Arizona, where it says that "Only persons married to each other may own real property as community property."
Or leaving that aside, should a civil union grant me spousal immunity from testifying against my partner the way married couples have? If not, why not?
Should we be able to file our taxes jointly? If not, why not?
When one of us dies, should the other receive Social Security benefits the way survivors in a marriage do? We pay the same Social Security monies in, so if not, why not?
Staying with the death theme, if one of us dies, should the other have to pay estate taxes on what we inherit from the other? If so, why?
And if one of us dies, should the other be allowed to roll the deceased one's 401(k) into an IRA without paying taxes on it, the way a married survivor would be able to? If not, why not?
If one of us wasn't a citizen and one was, should the non-citizen be able to petition for citizenship, so as not to break up our family, as married couples are entitled to do? If not, why not?
Should the Full Faith and Credit clause in the Constitution apply to me and my partner? If we get a civil union in one state, should all other states be bound by law to recognize all the rights and responsibilities pertaining to it? If not, why not?
Here's that clause, btw:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
That'll do for a start.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was gone from hatrack for like a month and a half I come back and guess what?....This thread is still going strong! Which leads me to the question. Whats the longest thread ever?
Posts: 832 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the longest thread ever that's still alive and well is the "Begging the Question" game on the other side. It just keeps going and going...
Posts: 973 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the front page of the other side there are currently threads with 79, 15, 16, 49 146, and 105 pages in them. This thread only has 14 pages.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* When are Dagonee's and starLisa's questions going to be answered? I'm getting impatient!!
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry; I'm in the middle of getting my Master's and I'm buried with papers. Not like I should be the sole voice of dissent, but that's the way it's turned out.
StarLisa's details are very helpful and, frankly IMHO, none of them should be granted under current law as definitions of what constitutes marriage are very, very different. Gay marriage proponents want everything anyway, so nitpicking this benefit and that benefit would be fruitless.
My thought on civil unions should be any two people, regardless of relationship, can apply for certain powers such as hospital/privacy authority and other core benefits that involve life and limb. Since Tom brings up the idea that marriage is simply a committment between two people, then this civil union should be available to gay couples, mothers and sons, siblings, friends, etc.
Heck, why not eliminate the idea of "marriage" out of the civil arena and leave it as simply a unique docrtine of religion? Why not have only a "civil union" available to ANY two (or more) committed people?
What if I was an elderly single woman living with my elderly sister? Why couldn't we get a "civil union" and file taxes together, buy a home and have all the same medical and privacy rights available to married couples?
If "marriage" is nothing more than a committment between two people, then this seems a likely solution. Everyone would need to get a civil union at the courthouse to get the legal benefits, then they can be "married" by the faith of their choice and enjoy whatever it is they believe.
This "civil union" can also be fairly easy to cancel by both parties and then a "divorce" would only be in the religious arena. Non-religious couples could feel so much nicer about themselves because they "canceled their subscription" rather than got "divorced."
It's amazing how much nicer things sound when you change the words you use.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I am sympathetic about your paper plight, as I am a masters student as well, I do wish you had actually answered the questions instead of muddying the water even more. Frankly, that wasn't the easiest reply to understand.
The question was simple, and made even simpler with starLisa's break down of it. Your reply: "StarLisa's details are very helpful and, frankly IMHO, none of them should be granted under current law as definitions of what constitutes marriage are very, very different." is extremely vague. What do you mean by current law? Marriage? Um... that wasn't the question. The question was should those things be permissable in CIVIL UNIONS. Current law has nothing to do with it. It's a what should be allowed question.
You also wrote: "Gay marriage proponents want everything anyway, so nitpicking this benefit and that benefit would be fruitless."
That statement is very whiny. How about you actually answer the question rather than saying "Oh, they won't listen anyway since they want everything." It was a SIMPLE DARN QUESTION! You advocate civil unions, but you refuse to state what should be included.
Oh, you did answer part of it... they should be allowed to have hospital/privacy rights over life and limb. That might not even be legal for married couples, based on things I've heard Dagonee say*, and completely ignores the valid points that starLisa brought up.
And your comments about civil unions between people who aren't romantically involved were pretty silly. I'm not sure if you were trying to be sarcastic, I think perhaps you were...but anyway... if a non-romantic couple wanted to enter into a civil union because they share a house and are remaining together... well, what's so bad about that if civil unions are legal?
And for the record, I happen to not be an advocate of gay marriage. I'm not sure how I feel about civil unions. It's pretty bad when your arguments annoy someone who actually leans toward your side.
*in regards to the Schiavo case, I think I saw Dagonee state that the husband could only speak for what he thought his wife wanted...he couldn't make the decision based on his own feelings.
-Katarain
Edited to reword something where I used the word stupid in regards to an argument. And that's never a good technique.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I annoyed you. I re-read it and got confused myself.
If you read it again you'll see I said that NONE of what she says specifically should be allowed, IMHO, because I do not see homosexual unions to be considered "marriage." But she does, and THAT'S a good description of where the division lies: in defining the very nature of the construct. And, basing off of Tom's contention that marriage can be defined as a committed relationship (regardless if sex is involved or not) then what is defined as "committed?"
The idea that ANY two people being "committed" is not silly. Homosexual marriage was considered "silly" at one time, and now many people think it's as right as rain. Where's the line? The more I thought about it, the more the idea of an "Open Door" civil union may have some real merit.
As I said above, StarLisa did not mention issues of medical permission, privacy issues, and other core benefits granted to married couples that involve life and limb. THOSE are issues I think a civil union could solve. I'm not so savvy as to know every jot and tittle of what a couple gets in our society when they get married, so of course I'm more vague than I'd like to be. I DO think there is a compromise that can serve both parties, but many on both sides have an "all or nothing" attitude.
BTW, you can consider my comment whiny, but it's true. Read the posts earlier. Proponents do not want civil unions. They want the exact same system. That's not whining. That's calling a spade a spade. My biggest frustration in this debate is the double standard of those who demand equality and justice, basing their arguement on personal belief, then condemning others for doing the exact same thing.
Posts: 325 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by estavares: My biggest frustration in this debate is the double standard of those who demand equality and justice, basing their arguement on personal belief, then condemning others for doing the exact same thing.
People(and I do this my self) tend to think that their belief is right and just and others' belief is only opinion.
Posts: 27 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gay marriage proponents want everything anyway, so nitpicking this benefit and that benefit would be fruitless.
This is as counterproductive and inaccurate as the oft-heard suggestion that opponents of SSM are all bigoted religious fanatics.
Not all SSM proponents want 'everything'-and in any case, you have yet to state a compelling reason why they shouldn't get everything anyway, except 'status quo'.
quote:It's amazing how much nicer things sound when you change the words you use.
What is even more amazing is the lengths to which you're willing to go to keep homosexuals from having their relationships recognized as anything even close to marriage. Civil union is fine, but heck, why should it be a homosexual-only thing (could it be because that's awfully close to marriage?)...everyone should be able to do it!
It ain't your word, and it ain't your institution, man.
quote:BTW, you can consider my comment whiny, but it's true. Read the posts earlier. Proponents do not want civil unions. They want the exact same system. That's not whining. That's calling a spade a spade. My biggest frustration in this debate is the double standard of those who demand equality and justice, basing their arguement on personal belief, then condemning others for doing the exact same thing.
Not to belabor the point, but you're wrong. You're overgeneralizing. A spade is not a spade just because you say it's a spade for the same reason a marriage is not a marriage just because you say it is, and your ancestors to the nth degree would have recognized it as such, too.
The problem is that you are not arguing for equality and justice, you're arguing for inequality and injustice and exclusion. Marriage my way, PERIOD, is what you're arguing.
I can easily grasp why people feel this way, and frankly many of the reasons are compelling without being morally wrong. Religious reasons, a very well-defined definition of the word 'marriage', are all well and good, but please don't gild the lily, estavares, and say that you are arguing for justice and equality.
It's only grudgingly that you're willing to even consider granting homosexuals the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals. Thus far, your only justification for that stance is thus: "It's not a marriage just because they call it a marriage."
You are being deliberately obtuse. It's like a math problem where 1 = -1. They cancel each other out, because equally your marriage is not a marriage just because you say it is. Once you've removed that flimsy argument, all you've got left is status quo.
You have yet to provide even a single reason beyond 'status quo', or a single compelling reason why 'status quo' is a good reason in and of itself at all. And there's a reason you haven't, estavares: you can't. There is no other reason beyond the status quo, and the status quo is not sufficient reason in and of itself.
A cursory examination of human history reveals to us in the 21st century why the status quo isn't a good reason for anything. You have to do better than that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
You choose to accept it because it feels right, seems right, but you've no long-term proof. If there is, why wasn't this on the news? The ADA and other professional organizations are only just now making the declaration they believe homosexual marriage is fine, and every study I've read has only been within a decade. When did a handful of short-term studies become concrete truth?
We are dealing with one of the biggest hoodwinks in history––claiming proof has been established on a worldwide scale while systematically ignoring any and all competitive proof for being "opinions," ripe with bias, or merely the tools of the religious right to force their beliefs down people's throats. Both sides are so desperate to prove themselves that they'll take whatever study comes along and hold to it like its doctrine.
Science doesn't work that way.
You need to go back and read some of StarLisa's posts and others who see this as a civil rights violation and demand equal benefits regardless of any "proof." They want it because they FEEL it's right––so why is that any different than religious belief?
So let's stop with the knee-jerking and start answering some of the questions I've posed. How is homosexual marriage the same as so-called "traditional" marriage? If it's merely an issue of love and committment, then what's wrong with a civil union that allows ANY two people, so as long as they're committed, to enjoy those benefits?
Dag:
I look at it this way. It's like me saying I'm 65 years old, so I can get the senior's plate at Denny's. Should I get the same benefits, just because I want them? Am I 65 years old just because I say so?
posted
Actually, I'm wondering why you think two people willing to make a long term commitment shouldn't be able to provide for each other financially in a variety of specific ways, and why the ways that are available to them should cost them more money for no added benefit to anyone.
I'm not arguing for equality. I'm asking what is the cost of providing these benefits to particular couples.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
