quote:Originally posted by blindsay: What I do not understand is why people on both sides of the issue cannot come together and work out a compromise. Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
I have question...how much money would it take to convince you to get a civil divorce, and get a civil union with your spouse instead?
What if you and your future spouse were at the courthouse, waiting to get your license...and the line to get a marraige license was 15 minutes long, and the line for civil unions was empty.
Are you really saying that you wouldn't wait the 15 minutes to get a marriage that you claim is exactly identical to a civil union? I don't think so. I bet you would wait a great deal longer to avoid the civil union, and get the real marrriage.
I see what you are trying to bait me into, and I will go ahead and play along. The answer to your question is yes. I would go to the civil union line if there was not a wait. If it provided the exact same benefit as a marriage I see no problem with it. I would still tell people I was married, and there would be nothing wrong with that.
Civil unions have taken place in numerous states already, and I doubt that couples that have been joined in this way say "This is my husband, and we have been civilly unioned for two years." I am pretty sure they would just say they are married.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's unusual that I'd be compelled to post a reminder when kacard is already in the thread, but to emphasize a bit -- I'd ask that some folks please tone down the rhetoric. Discuss the issues politely, without personal character attacks. Our esteemed host(s) don't prevent people from disagreeing or from posting their disagreement or disapproval here, but it's asked that it be for the purpose of discussion within the standards set here.
quote:Gay couples could have their union, exactly like marriage, and call it something else.
My point has been that the only reason you'd ever want to call it something else is because you don't want to consider it exactly like marriage. If it were exactly like marriage, you'd call it marriage.
Tom, that is totally not my intention. What I am trying to do is discuss the possibility of keeping people on both sides of the issue happy.
Let me put it this way. Besides the "flavor" you prefer what is the difference between Budweiser, Bud Lite, Guiness, Michelobe, and Heineken? They are all beers, just different names. Sure they may each taste a little different, but they are all essentially the same. What beer you drink depends on what your tastes are.
Likewise, why couldn't the type of "Union" you want be determined by what your tastes are?
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am just trying to understand your side or view.
I think both religious organizations and the gay community and their supporters to be going about this in the incorrect way. Each side thinks that they are on the correct side of the issue. They have the right to do so. I just hope that one day both sides can come together and reach a compromise.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:why couldn't the type of "Union" you want be determined by what your tastes are?
What you are suggesting is that, to keep stout drinkers happy, we prevent Heineken drinkers from calling what they drink "beer."
If the default union were called a "union," in the same way that a default beer is called a "beer," I'd concede the point. However, that is not the case. Rather, the default union is called a "marriage."
I have previously observed that if the government were to stop issuing marriage licenses and instead issue only "civil unions" to people, I'd have no objection at all.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by blindsay: I would go to the civil union line if there was not a wait. If it provided the exact same benefit as a marriage I see no problem with it. I would still tell people I was married, and there would be nothing wrong with that.
You would see nothing wrong with saying that you were legally married if you weren't?
Well, can you understand that some people are honest, and don't want to have to lie?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
It is of my opinion that while I dislike many of the things in World Watch I continue to find Mr Card's stories to be worth reading and unlike a certain writer Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named (*cough* Tom Clancy */cough* ) doesn't try to sneak in his political views, I found the Ender Quartet and the Shadow Series consistent, enjoyable, and comforting.
IP: Logged |
posted
The argument I hear most often against the Civil Union/Marriage split boils down to a "separate but equal argument." I'm not really sure I see them as being analagous. Clearly even in separate but equal of the Jim Crowe era, things were NOT equal. But if a Civil Union had all the exact same rights and benefits and the only thing that was different was the name, I'd call it a win and walk off the field.
swbarnes2 -
Would it really be a lie? If you were gay and walked up to someone with your same sex partner and introduced them as your wife/husband, the person you are introducing them to will know that you have a civil union and not a "marriage." It isn't like you're part of some massive conspiracy to fool people into thinking you have what you really don't.
I hesitate to say that it's only different on paper, because a lot of things on paper make all the difference in the world, but I don't think this is one of those. I don't buy into OSC's arguments on marriage either, especially that marriage has always been what he claims it is now. And in fact to others on this thread who've said so, marriage has not always been man/woman. Off the top of my head I can think of several societies that have engaged in homosexual relationships for various reasons that were legally or societally recognized.
And to briefly cover the OP in this thread, I don't know Shanna, on the one hand I agree with Dag in thinking that your only reason for posting here could have been to either drum up support or cause a ruckus. But on the other hand, I can see wanting to post a protest as being perfectly legitimate. Personally I haven't bought an OSC book recently because he hasn't written anything that looks appetizing to me. But that doesn't mean I won't buy anything in the future, regardless of how I feel about his essays. I've yet to try and rationalize my feelings about his personal views (and public essays) with the buying of his books. It all feels a bit more dramatic than it should when it comes to a seven dollar book (or whatever a paperback costs these days), but I also realize that sometimes small things matter. Maybe even more often than not.
Personally if I were gay, and if I was fighting for gay marriage, I'd publicly fiercely call for gay marriage, but settle for a civil union as a compromise. Then in 30 years, after people have gotten used to civil unions and there were stats and proof out there to back me up, I'd call for a formal change in their status to marriage. I suspect there'd be much less opposition. Rarely I think do people win these things all at once. You win them in bits and pieces with big finales.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] The argument I hear most often against the Civil Union/Marriage split boils down to a "separate but equal argument." I'm not really sure I see them as being analagous. Clearly even in separate but equal of the Jim Crowe era, things were NOT equal.
But that's not the issue. And it never was. In fact, in Kansas, a disctict court found that the black and white schools in the 50's had comparable facilities.
The point of the argument to the Supreme Court, which the Supreme Court bought, was that just by making the facilites separate, you were treating the students unequally, even if the facilties themselves were comparable. There is no such thing as "separate, but equal".
quote:I hesitate to say that it's only different on paper, because a lot of things on paper make all the difference in the world, but I don't think this is one of those.
The difference between a civil union and a marriage is that one is a fundamental civil right, and the other is a bureaucratic invention concocted so that some people can be denied their fundamental civil rights, and other people won't feel quite so bad about it doing that to innocent people.
You want to say that you are married when legally you aren't that's fine. Do and say whatever you please.
But don't tell other people that they can't get married, because all they have to do is lie and say they are.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I've yet to try and rationalize my feelings about his personal views (and public essays) with the buying of his books. It all feels a bit more dramatic than it should when it comes to a seven dollar book (or whatever a paperback costs these days), but I also realize that sometimes small things matter. Maybe even more often than not.
To be perfectly honest, I've yet to buy a book since Shadow Puppets and Pastwatch for pretty much that reason.
(There a couple other factors related to the two books that weigh upon my decision too, but the point that voicing that here is somewhat different than elsewhere is one that I can sympathize with too)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The difference between a civil union and a marriage is that one is a fundamental civil right, and the other is a bureaucratic invention concocted so that some people can be denied their fundamental civil rights, and other people won't feel quite so bad about it doing that to innocent people.
I don't think it's quite that dramatic. I think it's just a name. It's like saying some people get the freedom of speech, and others get freedom of talking. They're the same thing as far as what you can and can't do, and you can even SAY you have freedom of speech, but you don't, it's freedom of talking.
Don't get me wrong, I personally favor the oft talked about plan here to make ALL marriages civil unions, and then whatever you do afterwards is your own business. I'm far more interested in the legal rammifications than the diction, and that's mostly what I see it as. But at the end of the day, I'd have no problem voting in favor of allowing legalized same sex marriage.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I've yet to try and rationalize my feelings about his personal views (and public essays) with the buying of his books. It all feels a bit more dramatic than it should when it comes to a seven dollar book (or whatever a paperback costs these days), but I also realize that sometimes small things matter. Maybe even more often than not.
To be perfectly honest, I've yet to buy a book since Shadow Puppets and Pastwatch for pretty much that reason.
(There a couple other factors related to the two books that weigh upon my decision too, but the point that voicing that here is somewhat different than elsewhere is one that I can sympathize with too)
Just putting this out there (and this applies to the original poster as well), but if you enjoy the books and would have enjoyed having them in your collection who suffers more from your avoiding them, Card or you?
Posts: 1569 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... I've yet to try and rationalize my feelings about his personal views (and public essays) with the buying of his books. It all feels a bit more dramatic than it should when it comes to a seven dollar book (or whatever a paperback costs these days), but I also realize that sometimes small things matter. Maybe even more often than not.
To be perfectly honest, I've yet to buy a book since Shadow Puppets and Pastwatch for pretty much that reason.
(There a couple other factors related to the two books that weigh upon my decision too, but the point that voicing that here is somewhat different than elsewhere is one that I can sympathize with too)
Just putting this out there (and this applies to the original poster as well), but if you enjoy the books and would have enjoyed having them in your collection who suffers more from your avoiding them, Card or you?
If I were to not buy his book, it wouldn't be because I was trying to cause him financial harm, though if I made that choice in concert with thousands of others, that might be a different ball of wax. The dollar or whatever that actually makes it to him via royalties isn't exactly going to kill him. Somehow I doubt my not buying his book will kill him, unless he's REALLY hooked on the dollar menu at McDonalds.
I guess it would be just for me personally, and about living up to my principles, but I haven't made that choice yet. Like I said, I haven't bought his books recently because of a lack of interest, not for moral reasons. Besides, like Shanna, if it was about hurting him or me, I could just borrow them from the library, at which point I don't suffer at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my case, it isn't anything like a deliberate boycott. I just don't enjoy OSC"s books anymore. I personally can't separate the hateful opinion pieces from the fiction.
I will and have recommended his books to other people (at least his earlier books). I also usually recommend that they don't read any of his columns.
It may be tacky to say so, but I am not encouraging anything and it may be useful information.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Concerning the necessity of OP's post. It should be noted that the post was a catalyst for what I believe is a very interesting thread. From a purely rational position though this is the most effective place to state discontent as it pertains to Card's opinions. At least if you want it to generate worthwhile dialogue.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
scooter- not sure if I understood your post correctly. Are you saying that since my husband and I don't have children and most likely won't have any, it was "irrational" for us to marry? Also, if any thing were to happen to me, because we are legally married,no one else but my husband can make choices for me. Some relative that doesn't even know me cannot make choices to suit their own needs. That is the biggest reason I support SSM. A gay man should not have to jump through legal hoops to be able to take care of his partner. On the other hand, same laws must apply to anyone who can legally get married... divorce, custody, allomoy, etc. Take the good with the bad.
Posts: 204 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by paigereader: scooter- not sure if I understood your post correctly. Are you saying that since my husband and I don't have children and most likely won't have any, it was "irrational" for us to marry? Also, if any thing were to happen to me, because we are legally married,no one else but my husband can make choices for me. Some relative that doesn't even know me cannot make choices to suit their own needs. That is the biggest reason I support SSM. A gay man should not have to jump through legal hoops to be able to take care of his partner. On the other hand, same laws must apply to anyone who can legally get married... divorce, custody, allomoy, etc. Take the good with the bad.
No.
What is irrational is to assume that all commitments should be equally protected by the law just because they are commitments. There should be a clear public good. I am not talking about your marriage or "Joe" and "Pual's" relationship--I'm talking about large-scale social policies that affect large-scale social institutions. A heterosexual couple not having children does not change the institution of marriage--it is an exception to a rule. Changing marriage to now accommodate gay couples, is changing the rule, not a simple exception.
I realize it is kind of abstract, this rule change helps to fundamentally change the social functions of marriage in society (which has been changing already with unwed childhood and rampant divorce--but I think those are also problems for society and opine against those as well) that a relatively few childless heterosexual couples could (unless such couples became the rule). Believe it or not, I don't think this is a cut and dry issue--I find myself tugged in multiple directions because I sympathize with many arguments.
However, for me, the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society, and just talking "fairness," and "equality"--very important, fundamental principles of a civil society, I agree--isn't compelling enough for me to justify such a radical change to a social institution that needs reinforcing these days, not deconstruction.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"this rule change helps to fundamentally change the social functions of marriage in society
You have the "conservatives" argue that gay people should be able to screw with each other as much as they like, as long as its outside marriage.
And you have the liberals argue that ideally the highest level a romantic/sexual relationship can take is a marriage.
Only one of these attitudes show respect for the institution of marriage, and it's not the "conservative" one. It's the liberal one.
So, yes, Scooter, same-sex marriage may indeed be changing the role of marriage in society, by increasing its value and putting it on a higher pedestal than it has been so far.
quote:the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society
I don't know what our common grounds are here, Scooter, so I'm not certain at which level you want me to begin the discussion. For example: I feel that a self-accepting homosexual is in general healthier than a closeted self-loathing one. I don't know if you agree.
Given that initial assumption, I think it makes an easier more productive environment for gay people if society accepted (not merely "tolerated") homosexuality.
And I see marriage equality as a fundamental way for society to so accept homosexuality.
On the other hand if you feel that acceptance of homosexuality in one's self is a bad thing, then obviously we don't have that initial common ground and all the following arguments are reversed.
That's why on some level I think it's meaningless to argue with OSC on this matter : me and he are fighting for different civilizations -- he's fighting for a Christian civilization in which homosexuality is a sin and a blemish before God, and I'm fighting for a secular humanist civilization in which human beings strive to find their own way towards happy productive lives.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, for me, the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society, and just talking "fairness," and "equality"--very important, fundamental principles of a civil society, I agree--isn't compelling enough for me to justify such a radical change to a social institution that needs reinforcing these days, not deconstruction.
Leaving aside the issue of whether "fairness" and "equality" are sufficient, I would argue that both heterosexual and homosexual society would benefit from the social acceptance of monogamous, long-term homosexual relationships.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is allowing gay marriage a ``radical change" to a social institution? For the vast majority the rights, benefits etc. are completely unchanged.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is allowing gay marriage a ``radical change" to a social institution?
I think the truth is that it's hardly any change at all to marriage, but a huge change to society's perception of homosexual relationships. And people who don't want to see that perception change are strongly opposed to it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is allowing gay marriage a ``radical change" to a social institution?
I think the truth is that it's hardly any change at all to marriage, but a huge change to society's perception of homosexual relationships. And people who don't want to see that perception change are strongly opposed to it.
As you say, really, the only change (except for those actually entering a gay marriage) is that of perception. Which makes this a bit different from other equality movements (e.g. slavery, even civil rights) where the case can be made that the movement's antagonists received a tangible benefit (or avoided a tangible loss) by blocking the movement. Does this show a rise in ``selfless bigots"... or is this an indication that this issue has been cynically amplified to manufacture a wedge issue?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:As you say, really, the only change (except for those actually entering a gay marriage) is that of perception.
Well, no. Two points:
1) Civil unions, by and large, don't exist either. 2) "Separate but equal" was discredited on the grounds that even if the facilities were otherwise identical, the fact that they were separate made them inherently inequal.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I think there is a misunderstanding (or at least I don't understand your points).
To clarify: I was not weighing in on the largely semantic issue of "marriage" vs. "civil union". I was equating them. My point was this issue is not a zero sum game i.e. those wishing to enter same sex unions (marriages) receive tangible benefit by being allowed to enter into such unions, hence it is entirely rational from an economic perspective for them to desire to do so. On the other hand, those against same sex unions (marriages) do not lose anything tangible. Compare this to the emancipation movement, where those against the movement were losing their free labor force. Where, then, does this staunch opposition - that is not economically motivated - come from? Thus my comments about selfless bigots etc.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I've been thinking about the last couple of days is how much the assertion that marriage has historically been a financial arrangement bothers me. I mean, how many marriages, proportionally, have been financially beneficial? I'd say enough are not that it's no more valid a basis than the procreative nature that so many people dismiss.
Just had to get that off my chest.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Something I've been thinking about the last couple of days is how much the assertion that marriage has historically been a financial arrangement bothers me.
It's a pretty loaded question whose answer depends on what time period and what culture you're talking about. Any answer that anyone here could give could be refuted by an obscure, or sometimes a perfectly relevent counterargument from another part of the world.
The American idea of marriage has varied somewhat over time, but actually I think marriage in America on the whole has been far less about money than love. That's my opinion of course, and sure there are thousands of examples of power marriages between the wealthy, but those still happen to this day. I think the average middle class person in America has usually married for love, and still does to this day.
But the problem with the assertions being made about marriage on the other side of this is that marriage has ALWAYS been about one thing or another. Like since the dawn of monogamous couplings marriage has been about men and women choosing to be together to riase kids in a family. It's a ridiculous assertion. Several West African cultures had woman/woman marriages regularly, and these were purely financial arrangements. I won't even delve into the Greeks, but there's plenty to rifle through there as well. And going back thousands of years, women were married off to men to secure political alliances, or were literally sold to other men with doweries.
If opponents of gay marriage restricted their rhetoric to America since the Constitution was signed and ratified, I think they'd be on much more secure ground in a lot of ways. Because another problem with the marriage arguments is that what a lot of homosexual couples are fighting for are things like power of attorney and filing joint taxes and survivor benefits. I bet if you looked at a list of the legal protections that same sex couples want, 90% of them would be things only a modern first world nation has. It's not like 14th century English heterosexual couples were happily enjoying their social security survivor benefits as defined in Leviticus.
Marriage has been around for thousands of years without any of the modern trappings that go along with it, so I, and many others, have a hard time associating 20th century marriage rights with the oft stated "marriage since the dawn of time" arguments I keep hearing on the other side.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess we don't state it often enough. The belief is that Adam and Eve were married by God in the Garden of Eden and commanded them to go forth and multiply. I think there was also a bit about leaving father and mother to cleave unto each other, so it was also love.
The interesting part about that, and it's in Genesis 2, is the implication that Adam had parents. I dunno. One possibility this brings up is that the "creation of man" was actually the divine institution of the marriage covenant among homo sapiens. Just one way out there interpretation.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If those who are anti-SSM want to convince the agnostics/atheists, they'll have to show that it will cause harm. I don't think it'll turn anyone gay, but, even if it does, so what? Monogamy prevents the spread of disease. Whether that's gay or straight monogamy makes little difference to the spread of disease. I also seriously doubt that SSM will substantially reduce the birth rate. Plenty of lesbians, like Melissa Etheridge, have chosen artificial insemination.
Demonstrable harm. You have to show it.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, and it may be that no one is convinced. Within Mormonism there are plenty of people who are confused between charity and tolerance and the law, and whether we should accept these changes. Perhaps we should, but what people need to understand is that for the church, marriage between a man and a woman is as important for salvation as baptism by immersion.
Thinking further on it, I don't know that it was marriage per se that God imposed on Adam, but a choice between two commandments (don't partake of the fruit vs. multiplying and replenishing the earth). This is fairly specific to Mormonism, and Gene Roddenberry if you recall the first Star Trek pilot. Between freedom and peace, humans choose freedom. It makes the end of that story, when Pike's life gets crappy so he returns to the garden, problematic. I guess it worked because Spock had to break the law to make it happen, so it was still cool.
Another creation myth is that of Prometheus, Epimetheus, and Pandora. Prometheus creates man, Epimetheus creates all the animals (as Adam named them). Pandora's curiosity releases every imaginable evil into the world, save hope. The reason this parallel is not often seen is that in the Greek myth, Prometheus and Epimetheus are brothers. This is not a problem for Mormon cosmology. Prometheus gives man fire, and for this suffers eternally.
Anyway, what it comes down to is whether one believes men and women are interchangeable. Whether it should be law is a matter of demonstrable harm. How one defines demonstrable harm is pretty subjective. I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course. Is it a greater harm than homosexuals consider they suffer by not being permitted to marry? I don't suppose so.
Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course.
Do you think that there are loads of women out there lining up to give gay men the opportunity to marry them?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I consider it harmful that women will increasingly be denied the opportunity to marry through this governmental course. Is it a greater harm than homosexuals consider they suffer by not being permitted to marry? I don't suppose so.
Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
If you assume that equal proportions of men and women are both gay, then I don't see why it wouldn't end up a wash. Wouldn't the same number of women, given the opportunity, choose women?
But then, that's not taking into account the legions of anti-SSM folk who think that gays should enter into heterosexual marriages, have kids, and just suck it up and live with it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Getting back to the parallel to interracial marriage, which was once considered unnatural, given the opportunity to "marry up", I think we'll find a lot of men will choose men.
As you brought it up again ...
quote: Hmm. I've thought of a result along these lines but had no idea the effect already existed. Mostly, I think gay marriage is going to wind up badly for women. I'm pretty sure there is also such a marriage squeeze that affects Asian men.
Interrracial divorce appears to be 10 percentage points more likely (41% to 31% by this survey). They call this "not hugely so" but I guess it depends on how serious you find "marital disruption" as a social ill. There are some findings that multiracial children are more likely to suffer mood disorders (this link disputes the matter) and some say if it is the case, it is society's fault, not the family structure. Well, we've had 40 years to sort out the society end of things.
Of course, being biracial, I suppose I have made the choice to inflict these same problems on my children. The thing is, I'll at least name it for being a challenge rather than insist that the rest of society pretend we're normal, and call anyone who believes otherwise evil.
... is a bit reminiscent of the "I'm a democrat and I think they suck" school of legitimizing criticism we've seen from time to time.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:"this rule change helps to fundamentally change the social functions of marriage in society
You have the "conservatives" argue that gay people should be able to screw with each other as much as they like, as long as its outside marriage.
And you have the liberals argue that ideally the highest level a romantic/sexual relationship can take is a marriage.
Only one of these attitudes show respect for the institution of marriage, and it's not the "conservative" one. It's the liberal one.
So, yes, Scooter, same-sex marriage may indeed be changing the role of marriage in society, by increasing its value and putting it on a higher pedestal than it has been so far.
quote:the burden is still on pro-gay marriage advocates to show how such changes would help society more than it could hurt society
I don't know what our common grounds are here, Scooter, so I'm not certain at which level you want me to begin the discussion. For example: I feel that a self-accepting homosexual is in general healthier than a closeted self-loathing one. I don't know if you agree.
Given that initial assumption, I think it makes an easier more productive environment for gay people if society accepted (not merely "tolerated") homosexuality.
And I see marriage equality as a fundamental way for society to so accept homosexuality.
On the other hand if you feel that acceptance of homosexuality in one's self is a bad thing, then obviously we don't have that initial common ground and all the following arguments are reversed.
That's why on some level I think it's meaningless to argue with OSC on this matter : me and he are fighting for different civilizations -- he's fighting for a Christian civilization in which homosexuality is a sin and a blemish before God, and I'm fighting for a secular humanist civilization in which human beings strive to find their own way towards happy productive lives.
As far as your claims about what conservatives and liberals approve of, that is just one way to spin it--and a way to favor your opinion. To spin it another way, conservatives want to maintain the institution of marriage AND give people the right to privacy about their sex lives. Liberals have historically been more antagonistic toward government's role in marriage, and toward marriage in general (at least compared to conservatives), but all of a sudden think it is such a great thing now that SSM-has become so PC. The very people who have called marriage oppressive are now championing it as the highest commitment one can made and should thus be extended to all. I'd say liberals don't care about marriage nearly as much as they care about legitimizing homosexuality.
As you say, such legitimization can be viewed as positive or negative. I don't think it is a good justification either way for social policy, however. I think the religious thrust behind Prop 8 if due mostly to the legitimization issue, and they throw out some of the legalese to mask some of it (though I think some of it is legitimate). For me, this legitimization is inevitable anyway, but it is the shift in the functions of marriage on a societal level that concern me the most.
It is very possible that widespread SSM could strengthen marriage in some way, and it is at least as likely that it will weaken it. I think the case for weakening it has already been demonstrated with the way it has been evolving toward unpackaging sex, children, and marriage. SSM is a huge shove down that staircase. some hospitals are changing birth certificates from father and mother to parent 1 and parent 2. It is the domino effect that these policy changes create that are the biggest causes of concern, not if Martha and Janet down the road make marriage vows.
As for comments from other posters, if people cannot see a difference between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship, this conversation will continue to be in vain. Are there similarities--of course, but the inherent differences are so profound that overshadowing them by the similarities to justify a major social policy change is very unwise, in my opinion.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:To spin it another way, conservatives want to maintain the institution of marriage AND give people the right to privacy about their sex lives.
Um....How are you defining "conservative" here? Because it's traditionally thought, for example, that laws in states which ban sodomy or restrict the purchase of sex toys are "conservative" ones, and there's definitely no "right to privacy" being asserted there.
quote:Are there similarities--of course, but the inherent differences are so profound...
You know, I would never describe my genitals as being particularly "profound." And yet the genitals involved are pretty much the only difference guaranteed to exist between these relationships.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I am fortunate to live in a FREE Country where I can be a gay man if I so choose. It seems that with every election, my countrymen and women get further and further from the basic principals that this country was founded on, so many years ago.
Freedom, Liberty, and Justice for all.
What? Seriously?
I'm sorry... I could be totally wrong, but...
Isn't that from the Superfriends?
Sorry...
I disagree with OSC very much on this issue. The pursuit of hapiness is one of my rights as a gay man, and is was guaranteed to me before there was any mention of marriage under Federal law.
However, I find it funny that people would stop reading his wonderful books because they don't like his articles. Instead, they continue to read his articles while boycotting his books, and then comment about how horrible his beliefs are on his website.
Posts: 438 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I might be turned to supporting homosexual marriage if it also meant repealing no-fault divorce. No more pre-nups, and make it next to impossible to get a divorce, like it used to be. Also, if a single woman gets pregnant, the man must be forced to either marry the woman or pay substantial child support or face severe penalties. If he's already married, he goes to prison. Would that be an appropriate compromise?
Concerning the OP; I'm a Christian, but I love listening to King Diamond. He's an "ordained priest of Satanism," but holy cow that's good metal. Same for Dimmu Borgir. Why must one agree with ones beliefs to appreciate and enjoy ones art? Tell me someone whose art you love, and I guarantee there's something about them you dislike or disagree with.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I might be turned to supporting homosexual marriage if it also meant repealing no-fault divorce. No more pre-nups, and make it next to impossible to get a divorce, like it used to be. Also, if a single woman gets pregnant, the man must be forced to either marry the woman or pay substantial child support or face severe penalties. If he's already married, he goes to prison. Would that be an appropriate compromise?
I wouldn't support that at all, but I'm curious, did you mean to be gender specific there, or would the entire onus of marriage punishment fall on men?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I should say that if a woman wanted a divorce, she would still have to prove some wrongdoing that would allow her to receive the divorce. But that is implied by my suggestion to repeal no-fault divorce.
Why wouldn't you support my hypothetical?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A half dozen reasons off the top of my head, but hey, I'll toss thing you said in there that I like too:
1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever? What if they have kids and their fighting is tearing the house apart? My parents fought a lot when I was younger, and their divorce was probably the best thing that ever happened to our family. Perhaps mine is a special circumstance, since most of my friends when I was growing up took about two years to realize my parents were even divorced because they were on such good terms. But sometimes a divorce can drastically improve a situation, and maybe sometimes parents should stick it out, but making it nearly impossible to get divorced I think does service to no one at all. You're either potentially making the couple suffer needlessly, or making an entire family suffer with no exit. Who are you trying to help?
2. On your single woman gets pregnant thing: Ridiculous. What if the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does? It's not just about the man being forced to do something. Would the woman be forced to marry him as well? What if she wanted to walk away, would she have to pay the same "substantial child support" payments or face severe penalties? And I'll repeat a theme here: how does this better serve society? Two people that might have nothing in common or any desire to see each other again in a few days would be forced to spend a life together and raise a child?
3. Your punishment of already married men seems totally counterintuitive. If he's already married he goes to jail? Okay, so who is paying your "substantial child support" payments of this guy is in jail and without a job? You could possibly be stranding not one but TWO families with such an automatic punishment. How is society served not only by having two families only half funded, but by ALSO having society pay to incarcerate the same guy who isn't paying for his families? It's a double whammy!
4. What about if a woman cheats on a man? What if a woman cheats on a man and gets herself pregnant with another man's baby? Off to jail with her? Can she have the baby first? Does the other guy have to go to jail too? Would the other guy have to pay child support to the actual husband, OR, would the husband actually have to pay child support to the real father after the wife went to jail and he took custody?
5. Let me sum up: What's your point? What would you be trying to accomplish with such a dramatic government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry, and for that matter, how do you reconcile such an intrusion with a supposedly conservative personal ideology? It seems to be conservatives want government's hands out of the wallets and in their bedrooms. Personally I'd rather they take my money and build a bridge rather than tell me who I can and can't marry.
The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married. But that's just a gut reaction to the issue. In reality I recognize the possible need for some sort of legal apparatus to do what pre-nups do, I'm just not sure I like them as they stand.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, let me say that I came up with all that (as per usual) as I was writing it. But (as per usual) let me try to defend my hypothetical anyway. I'll get to How This Serves Society at the end.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: A half dozen reasons off the top of my head, but hey, I'll toss thing you said in there that I like too:
1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever? What if they have kids and their fighting is tearing the house apart? My parents fought a lot when I was younger, and their divorce was probably the best thing that ever happened to our family. Perhaps mine is a special circumstance, since most of my friends when I was growing up took about two years to realize my parents were even divorced because they were on such good terms. But sometimes a divorce can drastically improve a situation, and maybe sometimes parents should stick it out, but making it nearly impossible to get divorced I think does service to no one at all. You're either potentially making the couple suffer needlessly, or making an entire family suffer with no exit. Who are you trying to help?
Ok, not next to impossible, but no-fault is out. If you both parties can agree that they should no longer be married and can arrange a suitable deal, then it should be easier. If only one is seeking the divorce and he or she can show that everyone would be significantly better off if a divorce is granted, then good. If children are involved, their welfare must be take priority. If one of the spouses wants a divorce and his or her reasons have to do with simply being unhappy, or falling out of love with the other, or wanting to marry someone else, too bad. If it's because the other cheated and this can be proven, divorce is granted but mandatory sentencing for adultery. More on that later.
quote:2. On your single woman gets pregnant thing: Ridiculous. What if the woman doesn't want the baby but the man does? It's not just about the man being forced to do something. Would the woman be forced to marry him as well? What if she wanted to walk away, would she have to pay the same "substantial child support" payments or face severe penalties? And I'll repeat a theme here: how does this better serve society? Two people that might have nothing in common or any desire to see each other again in a few days would be forced to spend a life together and raise a child?
In all circumstances marriage is agreed upon by both parties, and this was so obvious to me that I neglected to say so. If the man doesn't want to marry the woman, he must pay a substantial portion of his income to the mother of his child. If he is willing but she is not, then he does not have to pay as much, maybe just enough to cover half the costs of the child's expenses, starting with a base amount and taking into account both parents' income. If she has the baby but doesn't want it and the man does, she pays child support. And if they didn't want to face the prospect of having a baby and a life together, they shouldn't be having sex.
But he used a condom, and she was on birth control! Oh well, you take your chances in life sometimes.
quote:3. Your punishment of already married men seems totally counterintuitive. If he's already married he goes to jail? Okay, so who is paying your "substantial child support" payments of this guy is in jail and without a job? You could possibly be stranding not one but TWO families with such an automatic punishment. How is society served not only by having two families only half funded, but by ALSO having society pay to incarcerate the same guy who isn't paying for his families? It's a double whammy! [quote] Adultery should be a crime punishable by a substantial fine and/or a goodly amount of time in jail. Don't wanna pay the fine or do the time? Don't do the crime. Sucks for everyone involved, but punishment should be a deterrent. This serves society by lowering the overall instances of infractions resulting in out-of wedlock children who are much more likely than average to grow up poor and uneducated, thereby continuing the accelerating cycle.[quote]
4. What about if a woman cheats on a man? What if a woman cheats on a man and gets herself pregnant with another man's baby? Off to jail with her? Can she have the baby first? Does the other guy have to go to jail too? Would the other guy have to pay child support to the actual husband, OR, would the husband actually have to pay child support to the real father after the wife went to jail and he took custody?
If a married woman cheats and gets pregnant, that is grounds for divorce. The husband is not responsible whatsoever for the child, and I don't know why you thought he might be. The man who got her pregnant is guilty of adultery if it can be proven he knew she was married and is punished. If she keeps the baby, she avoids jail. If she gives up the baby to the father and he accepts it, he avoids jail (she doesn't, though she may get off with a fine.)
quote:5. Let me sum up: What's your point? What would you be trying to accomplish with such a dramatic government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry, and for that matter, how do you reconcile such an intrusion with a supposedly conservative personal ideology? It seems to be conservatives want government's hands out of the wallets and in their bedrooms. Personally I'd rather they take my money and build a bridge rather than tell me who I can and can't marry.
Other than wanton, reckless, consequence-free promiscuity, can you identify any substantial contributing cause of out-of wedlock children who likely grow up in poverty, receive little education of value, are more likely to resort to crime, and end up filling our courts and prisons and costing taxpayers WAY more money than any of the complaints you made above? This is in spite of the millions of abortions performed in this country every year. This is not an invasion of privacy. If you don't want the government involved, don't get let them get involved. Don't file the required paperwork. If you want that guy to pay and he wont marry you, then I guess you better make a report. And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
I'm not suggesting Sharia Law here. I'm just saying some accountability should be instituted.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: 1. Next to impossible to get a divorce? Some people just shouldn't be married. For a lot of reasons. Maybe they got married and discovered they can't live with each other. Should they be forced to live together forever?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The thing that I like? No more pre-nups, or at least, a restructuring of the way pre-nups work. While I think on the one hand it's fair to protect your assets under certain circumstances, I think that if you really don't know the person you are marrying all that well, maybe you shouldn't be getting married.
*blink* And those two stands don't strike you as a tiny bit contradictory?
I don't think so. He thinks divorces should be easy to obtain, but if you're getting married in the first place, you shouldn't be able to state right from the get-go that you don't think it's gonna work out in the long run and so let me protect myself with a pre-nup. You might want to rethink the whole thing in that situation. "This woman annoys me the way she always picks at her toenails on the couch, so I'm divorcing her. But I'm rich and I don't want to give her half." Well you shouldn't have married someone if you're so fickle about your taste in women!
Besides, if you earned all your money while you were married to her, why shouldn't she get half, especially if you're the one seeking the divorce? If you were rich beforehand, then she only gets half of your earnings since the start of the marriage anyway. At least, that's the way I understand it to work; I could be wrong about that.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if you committed adultery, well, you probably shouldn't have done that.
This still doesn't address the core problem submitted to you about this proposal: in the event that a married man cheats on his wife and impregnates someone else, you now have two single-parent households and a father who, while incarcerated, has no way to pay support to either.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
