posted
And I think that was the entire point of the above linked article. How immature is it to blame "society" for hurting marriage when your own personal marriage--or lack thereof--is ENTIRELY in your own power?
"Yes, but we want to protect marriage for our children."
Okay. What Bob said. Teach by example, not by oppressing homosexuals just because you *think* they *might* make marriage more blase than your own heterosexual predecessors have made it.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
there are so many different scenarios and variables you can't play to the negative!
While it is always best to think positively, we can't assume that just because something sounds good to our inexperienced ears it will necessarily have good consequences.
You've got to just believe that this won't affect "the sanction of marriage" negatively because its the right thing to do.
It is best to be cautious in making changes to our most important institutions. Marriage is probably our most important societal institution.
Some of us have a very hard time believing that allowing gay marriage won't affect society negatively. We have witnessed, recently, how tinkering with our attitudes toward marriage has affected our society negatively.
I would suggest that we go very slowly in making any changes to the institution of marriage.
I would also suggest that we do whatever we can to help homosexual couples, short of allowing marriage. They need to feel safe and secure in this society, just like every other citizen.
We can make changes to allow for inheritance, health care, hospital visitation, job security, etc. that can greatly enhance the lives of homosexual couples.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I would suggest that we go very slowly in making any changes to the institution of marriage."
There are those of us who do not believe that a legal recognition of homosexual marriage constitutes a change to the institution of marriage, of course.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would suggest that we go very slowly in making any changes to the institution of marriage.
Oh, evolve already!
"Society" can handle change. That's what it does. Do you honestly think that this would have any impact whatsoever on 99% of American families? Do you think for even a moment that this could be as detrimental to our "society" as, say, President Bush's tax cuts? Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are those of us who do not believe that a legal recognition of homosexual marriage constitutes a change to the institution of marriage, of course.
And there are those of us who disagree with you, of course.
Bob (and others):
Of course, you are correct that we can't blame "society" for our individual choices. But societal attitudes do affect those choices.
Many marriages and families are broken up because men and women "aren't feeling fulfilled right now." They don't realize that from time to time we just have to push on and do what is best for our families. Sometimes that requires us to put our own needs on the back burner for a few years.
Sometimes our society teaches us that "I need to get what I need right now." While, we can choose to make the right choices in spite of this attitude, we are frequently despised by everyone around us for doing so. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I usually avoid discussions like this, but...
quote:While there were certainly marriages in the past which stayed together for sake of appearances, I think that one major difference was this: since people knew that divorce was stigmatized they were more likely to work out their problems rather than jumping ship. When big problems arose they talked, worked things out and got past them whereas today they generally jump ship.
My mother's parents "stayed together for the kids," and because they lived in a small town and it would've been scandalous for them to divorce. I can tell you from her description of her family life that there was very little in the way of "working things out" and "getting past them." As a result, my brilliant, talented mother has very low self-esteem and an unrealistically pessimistic view of life. Divorce is NOT an unmitigated evil, and "staying together for the kids" in an unhealthy, tension-filled marriage hurts children rather than helping them.
As far as realizing that marriage requires more than love, I really think the responsibility for teaching this rests with parents rather than with society. So many parents let their children run wild without teaching them anything (which should be a primary parental function!). In spite of my mother's childhood experience, she had (has) a very happy marriage, and raised my siblings and me to believe that marriage is an agreement between two people who love each other to work together and be together. My question, then, is why should this sort of agreement--which is a legal agreement, in the eyes of the government--not be accessible to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals?
I'm speaking of a secular union, not of the religious union recognized by the church. That one, I'll leave you church-goin' folk to work out amongst yourselves. Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Caleb, thank you for so quickly proving the point from the last paragraph of my last post.
"Society" can handle change.
Are you sure of that? I am not, having lived through the sexual revolution.
Do you honestly think that this would have any impact whatsoever on 99% of American families?
I don't think that it will have any impact on current American families. I think it will have negative, unforseen impacts on societal attitudes thereby affecting future American families negatively.
Do you think for even a moment that this could be as detrimental to our "society" as, say, President Bush's tax cuts?
Actually, I know personally, three families that have benefited greatly from the recent tax cuts which were proposed by President Bush and approved by the United States congress.
So I guess the answer to your question is, yes, IMHO, gay marriage would cause problems to our society which would be long-lasting and cause much more damage than tax cuts which (IMHO) have not caused any problems at all. Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, Sweet William, kill the smilies! It does NOT help to call someone selfish and immoral and then smile about it! We know you have strong feelings about this, everybody does. A smilie face does not make your position better or easier to stomach!
quote:Actually, I know personally, three families that have benefited greatly from the recent tax cuts which were proposed by President Bush and approved by the United States congress.
The Bush family, The Cheney family, and the Ashcroft family.
Are you sure of that? I am not, having lived through the sexual revolution.
I'll bet the civil rights movement still pisses on your toast. Leaving it all soggy, cold and yucky tasting.
Well, here is a suggestion for you. Move to Utah, where it's as close to America 1950's as you're going to get.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course gay marriages will cause problems.
It will also solve some problems.
Not having gay marriages will cause problems.
Everything that we do "causes problems."
So causing problems is not a factor in making a decision. Because not making a decision will cause problems, too.
The best we can do is try to foresee all the problems that can occur and decide which will cause the least serious problems.
Since gay marriages only directly affect a very small percentage of the population, I foresee only very small direct effects.
Yes, there will be unforeseen problems if we allow gay marriages. But there always will be. If you want to worry about unforeseen problems, you have to weigh them against the unforeseen problems of not allowing gay marraiges.
And that can be tricky. Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thor, knock it off, 'k? You don't need to take Sweet William's socially conservative tendencies personally, you know.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: My mother's parents "stayed together for the kids," and because they lived in a small town and it would've been scandalous for them to divorce. I can tell you from her description of her family life that there was very little in the way of "working things out" and "getting past them."
There are a couple of things to say to that: Where one doesn't want to two can't dance. It requires a commitment on the part of both partners. If one just doesn't want to change then by all means get a divorce. The situations I am talking about are things that come up like this: the husband has a job in Duluth but the wife's family lives in Orlando so of course she would like to move there. They search for jobs in Orlando but can't find anything that isn't a dead end so... obviously things just can't be worked out and they should get a divorce
quote:As far as realizing that marriage requires more than love, I really think the responsibility for teaching this rests with parents rather than with society.
Of course this is the case, nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right.
quote: I really don't think you can talk about "personal responsibility" as the most important thing, and then say that the way to accomplish that is to change society. That's just putting the blame back on society and you've just told us we shouldn't do that.
SHouldn't we do both? Shouldn't we teach our children AND try to change society so that it reflects what we most deeply value? When we see things in our society which conflict with our beliefs shouldn't we point them out so that others are aware?
quote: I'm of the opinion that if the marriage is a failure, it really doesn't matter much whether you stay together or divorce, unless their are kids. And then you have to decide what's better for the kids: growing up around adults who can't abide each other's presence or growing up in a split household.
Of course. However, what some of us are saying is that the point where people call their marriage a failure and give up on it should probably be a bit more stringent than what many think.
quote: But the bottom line is that you shouldn't be willing or ready to make that decision for other people. You haven't been in their situation. You don't know what their daily life is like. And juding them based on the failure is about the only "tool" society has as a way to discourage divorce, right?
Of course no one can make that decision for other people. Nonetheless, we should do our best to help educate those around us about the reality of what marriage is (or should be). The things portrayed in hollywood and elsewhere just don't reflect reality (duh). But it seems that nonetheless many people get married with those expectations of romantic euphoria that will last forever.
I think that what happens is that people get biological love and emotional love confused. Biologically we get a fine flow of tasty endorphins when we are near someone we are attracted to. After a while we become acclimated and those endorphins just don't flow anymore. Many people take this lack of euphoria to mean that something is wrong with their marriage and so they go looking elsewhere for that euphoria- hence the high rate of infidelity etc. And Holloywood teaches us that this is exactly how it should be. How many movies have you seen where the protagonist leaves their old, stale marriage or engagement because they find someone new who is much more exciting?
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does NOT help to call someone selfish and immoral
Um Kasie:
Please stop yelling. I will use smilies if I want to.
And I didn't call anyone selfish. I didn't specifically call anyone immoral, although I did imply that homosexual acts are sinful.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll bet the civil rights movement still pisses on your toast. Leaving it all soggy, cold and yucky tasting.
Well, here is a suggestion for you. Move to Utah, where it's as close to America 1950's as you're going to get.
Thor- I am betting that you know a lot less about Utah than you think you do. In fact, everything you ever say about Utah and Mormons tells me that you have taken a set of assumptions, prejudices and hearsay, bundled them all together in a package, given it a label and carried it around with you where you may hand it to someone anytime the chance comes up.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll bet the civil rights movement still pisses on your toast.
Thor: Why can't we have a civil discussion on here without you or someone else implying hatred or bigotry?
BTW, I do live in Utah. I'll have my three African-American tennis pals, or my Venezuelan neighbor with whom I discuss Victor Hugo, or my Argentian friends explain to you my benighted views on the civil rights movement. And let's not forget my Tongan and Mexican weightlifing buds.
(That one's for you, Kasie).
[ August 05, 2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: Sweet William ]
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Bob Thanks for responding so thoughtfully (answering your reply on page 1). I'm glad you know me well enough to be surprised that I would blame society for my mistakes. That's not exactly what I said, so I'll quote the pertinent point:
quote:You see, I made a few mistakes when I was younger. Some of it was stupidity on my part, but some of it was societal stupidity.
I don't blame society for my own stupidity and poor choices. But I do hold it accountable for attitudes and permissiveness when it came to marriage mores. And yeah, I do actually know some people who got married with the idea that if it didn't work out, they'd just get divorced, as if it were a foregone conclusion. Big surprise, most of them are divorced now.
I know you know that I'm a faith-filled person. I believe in God. But at no point did any of my arguments bring up religion. I try to question the demands of my religion where culture meets doctrine, exactly because of the "ick" factor described in that article Kayla found. I don't want to be one of the bigots who cries heresy where there is none.
Still, I see a lot of what has weakened marriage has little to do with law. It has to do with society. Permissiveness toward promescuity, pregnancy out of wedlock, easy divorce, and "shacking up" have harmed marriage. At first, most of these things looked like good ideas. Free love -- sex with anyone you want, why wait, why deny your primal urges? Why shouldn't you be able to get away from someone you detest, now that you've discovered that the marriage is nothing but a hollow shell? And why bother getting married at all? After all, it's just a piece of paper.
The problem is that none of these things come without baggage. We found out what that baggage was *after* society was willing to accept them. So...we should do it again with gay marriage? It's yet another social experiment that we're willing to play with at unknown costs.
As for interracial/interfaith marriages, people going into these marriages *do* face unique challenges. There is good reason to be cautious. I'm not saying that they shouldn't happen, or that they should be legislated against. But it is well worth extra counselling before the wedding to make sure the bride and groom know what they're getting into. And I say the exact same thing for blended families preparing for marriage.
Hey, Bok, to tell the absolute truth, I do this same thing, weighing pros and cons with just about *everything*, including changing my hairstyle. I'm currently weighing the pros and cons of dyeing one layer various shades of pink. I'm about four weeks into deliberation, and have given myself another two to decide for sure. I'm pretty sure I'm going to do it, though.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it OK to blast homosexuals as some type of dirty sinners, but something like Utahians get some "Don't speak ill of them!", or some one will throw a religious blanket "Don't speak ill of this church" when someone is using the churches views to speak out against other people?
Example, it's ok for people from a conservative church to talk about how "evil" homosexuality is, but if my church thinks the conservative church is evil, isn't it just as OK for me to talk about how the conservative church is evil?
Isn't that what y'all are saying, that if it comes from a church, then the word is perfect, except in the case of the church committing a sin, then it is not allowed to be brought up or acknowledged?
I don't see how someone like Sweetwilliam can continually speak out about his God and his religious beliefs, but yet his religion isn't "allowed" to be pulled into the discussion.
Weird. But hey, the majority rules.
I'm sure if we were on a websight where 80% of the people were gay and talking about how a conservative religion was evil, the people who spoke out against the religion would be welcomed, and those who spoke out against homosexuals would be called bigots.
Just like here at Hatrack.
You can talk about how homosexuals are EVIL til you're blue in the face, but bring up one negative and TRUE facts about the majorities conservative church, and you get called a bigot and a hate monger.
posted
Jacare, your situation involving the Duluth/Orlando couple is vastly different from the one you described more generally in your original post. In the Duluth/Orlando situation, I agree: they should work out a compromise, rather than just give up on the whole thing. However, what I was responding to was the situation in which, because divorce was not an option, couples stayed together in misery, and made their children miserable along with them. It seems, however, that, in spite of what you seemed to be implying earlier (i.e., that divorce is never justified), we are in agreement in that, at least.
Now, if you want to talk about trying to prevent people from marrying hastily by emphasizing the commitment involved in marriage, I'm all for it.
quote: nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right.
My question to you, then, is what is "what we value"? What if my values are different than yours? And as for expecting everyone's children to see through the contradiction: I hope that parents will teach their children well enough not to believe everything society teaches. Society has a loooooong history of being dead wrong (going back way before the advent of mondern media). I EXPECT that, should I have any children, those children will know that not everything that is popular is right and not everything that is right is popular. I make no claims for anyone else's children.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sure if we were on a websight where 80% of the people were gay and talking about how a conservative religion was evil, the people who spoke out against the religion would be welcomed, and those who spoke out against homosexuals would be called bigots.
There are many sites like that.
One of my favorite sites reported their sorrow over Mel Gibson's loathsome, hate-filled loserdom for making The Passion, made even worse because he made it sincerely, instead mockingly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see how someone like Sweetwilliam can continually speak out about his God and his religious beliefs, but yet his religion isn't "allowed" to be pulled into the discussion.
Feel free to pull it in, but don't do so out of ignorance, or with incorrect stereotypes.
In my mind, your post implied that me, Mormons in general, and Utah were all so opposed to the civil rights movement that our toast was somehow soggy.
Soggy toast or not, that was kind of an off the subject attack, my personal attitudes notwithstanding.
BTW, did you know that over half of the LDS members are not in the U.S.? That more than a third are from countries in South America and Africa? That our greatest growth and strength comes from countries with a large percentage of people of color?
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Andrew: Yes, there will be unforeseen problems if we allow gay marriages. But there always will be. If you want to worry about unforeseen problems, you have to weigh them against the unforeseen problems of not allowing gay marraiges.
Now that's a good argument. Thank you, Andrew.
The main issue with it is that we already know the consequences of *not* allowing gay marriage -- we have never allowed it, so it's not any big mystery. Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there *ever* been a society in history that allowed gay marriage? I'm genuinely curious.
As for it only effecting a small portion of the population, I don't think that's true. It's a radical departure from what we have known marriage to be. If it weren't, this wouldn't be such a hotly debated issue. By redefining it like this, I believe we would be affecting *most* of the population. But of course, I don't know that for sure. And neither does anyone else. So I think we should wait and see how it works out for Belgium, the Netherlands, and Canada first. I'd like to know how it affects divorce rates, whether or not multiple marriage partners becomes the next step, its long term effects on children.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my grandmothers stayed in an abusive relationship because, socially, she had no choice.
A woman couldn't earn a living wage on her own, especially one with a limited education. The stigma of divorce would have left her homeless and subject to worse crimes than the beatings and rapes she endured at home.
Don't blame divorce for people's choices. Thank God they HAVE a choice.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many marriages and families are broken up because men and women "aren't feeling fulfilled right now." They don't realize that from time to time we just have to push on and do what is best for our families. Sometimes that requires us to put our own needs on the back burner for a few years.
Sometimes our society teaches us that "I need to get what I need right now." While, we can choose to make the right choices in spite of this attitude, we are frequently despised by everyone around us for doing so
You have no idea what you are talking about. You've bought a line describing what "society is" and figure it's the truth.
-------------------------------------------------
Jeniwren -- the only people I've ever heard make the arguments you made did so from a religious perspective. Knowing you are very religious, I drew the obvious conclusion that you also arrived at your position as a matter of faith.
If I'm wrong, then I apologize.
But really, your argument about it sounds like every other one I've heard on this from a religious standpoint. It's the old "society needs fixing so that other people don't affect me and my children adversely."
-----------------------------------------------
EVERYONE:
My assertion is that we live in a world filled with people making choices. The "influence of society" is just a bug-bear, IMHO. The real influence on attitudes about marriage is what you grew up with. If you see your parents miserable and hoping for a divorce they can't have because of the kids or because it might cause a scandal, they are more likely to vow never to be or stay in that position. To some it might look selfish, but people are just as selfish now as they always have been. They are just more free to act on it.
Sure, if divorce were illegal and punishable by death, I bet people would stay together more and think a lot harder about getting married in the first place. But would that make them happier in their marriages? I doubt it. Why? Because anytime you commit to something for the future it's a giant crap shoot. You hope your spouse never gets a serious disease or doesn't turn into an alcoholic, or is a great parent, and is committed to always working things out no matter how hard they get.
But the truth is that people aren't perfect and passing laws (or failing to repeal laws) based on the assumption that in so doing you are raising the level of human behavior or thought is just a pipe dream. What you are doing, instead, is setting up a reward/punshiment system that forces people to behave outwardly in a way that avoids the penalties.
Does anyone here really believe the Muslim assertion that there are no gay men in the Arab world? They will tell you this point blank. Go ask. The fact is, there is certainly homosexuality among the devout Muslim world. It just never surfaces because if it did, the men involved would be ostracized and possibly killed (depending on the country/local tribe).
To me, that is exactly the kind of world that religious people in the US are advocating -- usually without thinking through their positions to their logical end. It's why I get so angry when I see this type of unsupported and unsupportable argument being used. But especially so when it is being used to continue a repressive policy.
The real slippery slope, to me, is toward repression of anything that doesn't meet with one particular group's sense of morality. Eventually, if we follow that line of logic, we end up where the Moslem contries are today -- ruled by poorly educated priests who think the answer to everything is to interpret scripture and wait. With no thought to the pain and suffering that continues for those already alive and having to live with the consequences of unfair restrictive policies.
If anyone here can tell me how lifting the ban on gay marriage is qualitatively different from lifting the ban on interracial marriage without using a religion-derived argument, I'd sure like to know how. State your major premises clearly and then follow a logical course to its conclusion.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Why? We make our decisions and our choices based upon all influences in our lives, including those based upon our religion.
If I am a part of this society, then my views get to be expressed and taken into consideration when making decisions for this society. I use all the knowledge and belief that I have to make those decisions that I feel will be best for myself and for society.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sweet William, your religious views do not coincide with everyone in society, and therefore should not be the controlling factor in a decision that is legal, rather than religious. I do not subscribe to your religious beliefs; therefore, I would not want to live in a society dictated by those beliefs. That's why there's a separation of church and state (at least in theory).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but has there *ever* been a society in history that allowed gay marriage? I'm genuinely curious.
But we're not concerned about history, now are we? We're talking about the future. On the one hand, you're right, we should learn from the past. On the other hand....we should learn from the past, because otherwise we are doomed to repeat it.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your argument is based solely on your religion, how can it have any meaning, relevance or impact to anyone who does not believe in that religion?
"My God abhors homosexual acts." Okay. So?
"My scriptures state that homosexual acts are a sin." Okay, so?
"I believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will weaken the institution of marriage and it's role of underpinning society." Now that's something that can be discussed without needing common religious ground.
Certainly our beliefs stem from our moral and/or ethical upbringing and adult decisions, but it'll take a good bit more than that to make legislation. I hope.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, I'll freely admit that we're all talking around the issue.
No one against gay marriage is REALLY afraid that it will cheapen or damage heterosexual marriages; they're afraid that it will lead to an acceptance of homosexuality.
And very few people who are FOR gay marriage simply think that homosexuals should be able to marry; they believe that gay marriage is one step towards more fully accepting homosexuals into society.
Me, I can't imagine what consequence of accepting homosexuality into society could possibly be worse than the beating, shunning, and furtive closeting we've forced on that culture for centuries, so I'm baffled by people who think it'll mean the destruction of the cities of the plains. But your mileage may vary.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey Tom -- thanks. You're right about everyone skirting the issue. That's why I was finding this thread so frustrating. Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I believe that allowing homosexuals to marry will weaken the institution of marriage and it's role of underpinning society." Now that's something that can be discussed without needing common religious ground.
Chris, I think I stated something very similar to that earlier.
Such a statement always begs the question: Why?
And my response always includes religious aspects, which some people feel are completely worthless in such a discussion.
Posts: 524 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
To some, Homosexuality is an action, a sin ones commit of free will. Those who know differently are those who commit such acts, sinners who are just trying to deny their sin.
To others, Homosexuality is a in-born fact of their existance. They can find sexual pleasure only in people of their own sex. Thier choices are not whether to commit an act of sin or not, but wether to live a lie or live eternally celebate or admit thier desires, accept them, and deal with them in a healthy way. Those who argue differently are not homosexual, so do not know what its like.
What Homosexual Marriage boils down to is this question. Do you believe that two men or two women can fall in love with each other?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
<grumbles about posting time at work, makes this post an hour later anyway>
quote:Of course this is the case, nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right.
Hmm. So, legally recognizing that two homosexuals have decided to pledge their lives to one another is somehow "the opposite of what we value". 'We' would of course prefer that they have no legal incentive for monogamous relationships whatsoever, right?
Sweet William, I am DREADFULLY sorry that I brought up President Bush's tax cuts. I shouldn't take it for granted that everyone else already understands the absurdly negative impact that they've had on our economy, especially since it's a) off the topic, and b) too uninteresting to me to warrant a decent substantiation of my claims.
Bob, as always: EXCELLENT POST. I'm thinking of making you guest of honor at the Thanksgiving thing. Maybe hanging up some flyers around the area to see if there'd be any interest in hearing you speak.
quote:My assertion is that we live in a world filled with people making choices.
Preach it, brother Christian.
Tom, as always you are deftly aware of the bigger picture. The problem is that we can't discuss it in light of the actual aims and wishes of both sides, because at that point we really would be fighting bigotry, not just doctrine.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: To me, that is exactly the kind of world that religious people in the US are advocating -- usually without thinking through their positions to their logical end. It's why I get so angry when I see this type of unsupported and unsupportable argument being used. But especially so when it is being used to continue a repressive policy.
Hm. Bob, surely you don't mean that most American Christians think that homosexuals should be ostracized and/or killed.
What I see is that the side advocating legalizing gay marriage has an unsupported and unsupportable argument when they say that it will only affect one small segment of society. The arguments on BOTH sides are unsupported and unsupportable because there is absolutely no conclusive data to tell us what the long range effects of such a decision would be. We would no sooner test experimental drugs in this manner than we should test the integrity of marriage with this social experiment.
quote:If anyone here can tell me how lifting the ban on gay marriage is qualitatively different from lifting the ban on interracial marriage without using a religion-derived argument, I'd sure like to know how. State your major premises clearly and then follow a logical course to its conclusion.
Uh...I thought I did that. My argument is based on the fact that we have no scientific data to tell us what will happen if we allow gay marriage. There is nothing in history to give us any clues, and there isn't enough time passed (just 2 years!) since the first nation in the world first allowed it. My premise is that marriage as an institution is too important to keep messing around with without knowing what the heck we're doing.
If my argument introduced religion derived evidence, please point it out to me, because I really don't want it there.
Kasie:
quote:But we're not concerned about history, now are we? We're talking about the future. On the one hand, you're right, we should learn from the past. On the other hand....we should learn from the past, because otherwise we are doomed to repeat it.
Doomed to repeat what? Arranged marriages? I don't understand your point. We try to learn from the past where current information cannot answer certain questions. In this case, the question is "What effect will homosexual marriage have on society at large?" Since we don't have enough current data to tell us, we could look to the past and to other societies to give us a good idea. Except it's never been done before, to my knowledge. So we really are running blind.
Tom:
quote:No one against gay marriage is REALLY afraid that it will cheapen or damage heterosexual marriages; they're afraid that it will lead to an acceptance of homosexuality.
And very few people who are FOR gay marriage simply think that homosexuals should be able to marry; they believe that gay marriage is one step towards more fully accepting homosexuals into society.
Yeah, you're probably getting to the heart of some of it.
I watched the movie Fame again a week or so ago. I think I only saw it once before, at least 13 years ago. I was struck by how dated it was, especially regarding homosexuality. Montgomery, in an environment where gays are often drawn (the arts), found it extremely difficult to come out about his sexuality. I couldn't imagine the same scenario today being credible. Maybe in the middle of a church mission, yeah, I could see it, but not in a school for the arts in the middle of New York City.
America really has changed. Shows like Will and Grace would NEVER have made prime time 15 years ago. And a gay reality dating show would NEVER have been made 10 years ago. Homosexuality is accepted as it has never been.
So I guess I'm missing the point of why marriage needs to be brought into the picture if it's a question of acceptance.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay folks, I thought I brought this up before, but here goes again. In this decision, it is not a matter of religion, but of a government recognizing homosexual marriage. It's two different beasts.
Should our government be able to bar it? No, on the grounds of numerous types of discrimination, they should not. From a governmental point of view, marriage is simply a specific binding contract between two individuals allowing them equal ownership of all properties held. It is also established for the sake of parentage and the rearing of children. There are also tax matters, inheritance, credit reporting, legal protection in courts of law, etc... The government can't ban gay marriages by the definitions of power set forth by the Constitution.
Now, religions can, individually, choose to not recognize such marriages. To religious institutions, marriage symbolizes a commitment made between two individuals to love, honor, cherish, stick together and raise a family, among others. Working purely in the realm of the spirit and under their own sets of rules, churches should be welcome to bar gay marriages or membership to individuals involved in such as they see fit. And the government (and this IS spelled out in the Constitution) can't make them accept such a marriage.
So, Civil marriages, in my opinion, can't be barred. Religious marriages of homosexuals are up to the adherents and leadership of each religious group.
The problem is that both the government and religious groups choose to have their ideas of marriage tied up strongly with the other one's realm.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hm. Bob, surely you don't mean that most American Christians think that homosexuals should be ostracized and/or killed.
No, but you would all be much more comfortable if there were no homosexuals, right? Barring that, it'd be best if no mention of that was allowed in the media or anywhere where a child might be influenced by it, right? Barring that, it should be well known that such behavior is a sin and something really terrible in God's eyes, right?
Just how exactly do we get to that state unless:
a) Everyone joins one particular faith, or,
b) We set up systematic repression.
quote:What I see is that the side advocating legalizing gay marriage has an unsupported and unsupportable argument when they say that it will only affect one small segment of society. The arguments on BOTH sides are unsupported and unsupportable because there is absolutely no conclusive data to tell us what the long range effects of such a decision would be. We would no sooner test experimental drugs in this manner than we should test the integrity of marriage with this social experiment.
I think your analogy is a poor one. On the one hand, you have people living out their lives restricted from enjoying the legal benefits of their long-term committed relationships. On the other hand (testing drugs) you have something entirely new, and a legitimate scientific protocol for testing them, but the alternative is just unleashing them on the open market.
I think you are too willing to trade other people's happiness and financial security for maintenance of the status quo, without good enough reasons.
quote:Uh...I thought I did that. My argument is based on the fact that we have no scientific data to tell us what will happen if we allow gay marriage. There is nothing in history to give us any clues, and there isn't enough time passed (just 2 years!) since the first nation in the world first allowed it. My premise is that marriage as an institution is too important to keep messing around with without knowing what the heck we're doing.
See, the problem I have is that you want to "wait and see" but your life isn't the one being adversely affected now. You may fear the effect that gay marriage might have on "the institution of marriage" but you know in your heart that it won't affect your marriage either way. So, essentially, you are arguing that your fears are more important than the real-life rights and chances for equality of living, breathing people.
I just don't buy into that kind of logic. I think that we ought not to wait if you are stacking the legal rights of contributing citizens against the vague prognostications of any group, no matter how large.
quote:Still, I see a lot of what has weakened marriage has little to do with law. It has to do with society. Permissiveness toward promescuity, pregnancy out of wedlock, easy divorce, and "shacking up" have harmed marriage. At first, most of these things looked like good ideas. Free love -- sex with anyone you want, why wait, why deny your primal urges? Why shouldn't you be able to get away from someone you detest, now that you've discovered that the marriage is nothing but a hollow shell? And why bother getting married at all? After all, it's just a piece of paper.
Was this the bit that wasn't based on religion? I thought it was. Just because you don't quote the Bible here doesn't mean that you aren't taking your cue from your faith. That's okay. I just want people to recognize that often when they try to come up with logical reasons to support a faith-based argument, they are still making a faith-based argument, essentially.
Your "promiscuity" is someone else's freedom. Your "out of wedlock" childbirth is someone else's freedom too. Your "shacking up" is someone else's freedom too.
Not all children born out of wedlock are bad. Not all sexual relationships outside of the bonds of marriage are bad. They are bad first and foremost from a religious perspective that tells us everyone should be a virgin until their wedding day.
The point is that those other people are free, and should be free, to make their own choices. Just as you were and remain. The point is that it does not affect your marriage in any way.
If it doesn't affect your marriage, what basis have you for the assertion that it affects "the institution of marriage." That it "might" affect your child's marriage? Or your children's children's marriages? Are you then not advocating that today's homosexual committed couples should be willing to wait a generation to see what the ramifications of granting them a right they should already have is on your potential offspring's offspring?
You are essentially here to tell us that you are strong enough to have a good marriage despite society's influence, but it's your business to decide that other people aren't smart enough or strong enough to get to that same place you have. And so, you want to protect this "institution" for the weak minded people around you.
Anyway, that's how I read that type of argument.
(I don't think you actually would hold that view if questioned on it, but I do think that it is the logical extension of the view you are promoting here)
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, while I agree with you on the subject, you might want to stop putting opinions in the mouths of all Christians.
quote: No, but you would all be much more comfortable if there were no homosexuals, right? Barring that, it'd be best if no mention of that was allowed in the media or anywhere where a child might be influenced by it, right? Barring that, it should be well known that such behavior is a sin and something really terrible in God's eyes, right?
As a Christian, non-Mormon, I believe that Jesus Christ tried his best to teach us to accept and love everyone... everyone. I don't wish for gay people not to exist or to just stay quietly away. I hope and pray that they, and everyone else, will find happiness, fulfillment and personal salvation in their lives.
Now the important words in the last sentence there are "personal salvation." Jesus taught that sin is personal... what one person does as a sin may be what another has to do to survive, making it not a sin at all. We can't judge others for we don't inhabit their skin and share their pure circumstances.
I once got into an argument with someone because they said that AIDS was a plague set upon us by God to punish the homosexuals and the promiscuous. I couldn't and don't accept it. I believe that HIV is more of a test. A horrid and infectious disease, it strikes many of those who have been seen as outside of the "religious norm." It does show up in the populations of homosexuals and the promiscuous, it's also prevalent among the most serious IV drug users, it is rampant among the teeming poor of Africa. It's not a punishment, it is a test of our compassion. Can the self-righteous of the world's most blessed nation put aside their prejudices and help the "undesirables" who suffer and die. Can we save them? Can we learn to value and love their lives as if they were our own?
Each generation, I believe, faces it's own moral tests. Some are easy to choose sides (WWII Nazis and Japanese Imperialism) but have deadly consequences for those who act and those who choose not to. Some are much tighter and more difficult (our generation's AIDS epidemics) but there are often times no immediate personal affects for action/inaction. If I choose to turn my back and not fight against AIDS, chances are that it will never come and hurt me. Two generations ago, if people had continued to turn their backs on Nazism...
So please, don't put prejudices against Christians. Like all prejudices, it shows ignorance, something Mr. Scopatz has never been known for.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems, however, that, in spite of what you seemed to be implying earlier (i.e., that divorce is never justified), we are in agreement in that, at least.
I didn't think that I was implying this at all, but I am glad that after further clarification we agree.
quote: Why is it OK to blast homosexuals as some type of dirty sinners, but something like Utahians get some "Don't speak ill of them!", or some one will throw a religious blanket "Don't speak ill of this church" when someone is using the churches views to speak out against other people?
Thor, are you seriously implying that this board is somehow skewed to the right? Have you been reading the same thread as the rest of us?
quote:"nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right."
My question to you, then, is what is "what we value"? What if my values are different than yours?
The "we" in this case is those of us who have posted on this thread. I think it safe to say that everyone who has spoken up so far thinks that marriage is an important commitment not to be entered nor left lightly. I think it also self-evident that such a value is not to be found easily in the mainstream media nor in the general societal indicators like divorce rate etc.
As far as what if we disagree- in that case one of three things must happen: we compromise, your view prevails or my view prevails. In general I would say that if we disagree we work at a compromise while simultaneously I try to convince you and anyone who will listen that I'm right while you do the same.
quote: And as for expecting everyone's children to see through the contradiction: I hope that parents will teach their children well enough not to believe everything society teaches.
You hope that parents will teach their children the importance of marriage, but do you really believe they will? For that matter, the current attitudes toward marriage are bound to propagate since so many people apparently believe them. This means that no matter what I teach my children they will definitely still be propagandized via the media, friends etc that marriage is a temporary contract to be ended whenever one or both parties feels that their "needs aren't being met". I hope that my children will be wise enough to see through this lie, but I can hardly take it for granted that such will be the case. For that reason I hope that the popular view of marriage changes so that the message will be consistent with what my children are taught at home.
quote: The real slippery slope, to me, is toward repression of anything that doesn't meet with one particular group's sense of morality. Eventually, if we follow that line of logic, we end up where the Moslem contries are today -- ruled by poorly educated priests who think the answer to everything is to interpret scripture and wait. With no thought to the pain and suffering that continues for those already alive and having to live with the consequences of unfair restrictive policies.
I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. The whole reason that human communities can form is because those who make up the community agree in broad terms about what is right and what is wrong. This means that those who do what the community deems to be wrong either may not have place in the community or the community must change their view of what is right and wrong. Clearly many times it is healthy and necessary for the community to change. However it is not always the case. If the community accepted every minority group who disagreed with their views then the community would necessarily cease to exist. As a simple example: The repulsive organization NAMBLA contests that the rights of men who want to have sex with boys are currently being repressed. This is certainly an example of "repression of anything that doesn't meet with one particular group's sense of morality" and I fervently hope that this will continue to be the case forever. It is possible that in the case of homosexuality the society should change what it defines as wrong and right, but that certainly doesn't mean that every time a minority group pipes up about their rights being squelched because it conflicts with our sense of morality that we should accomodate them.
quote: Sweet William, your religious views do not coincide with everyone in society, and therefore should not be the controlling factor in a decision that is legal, rather than religious. I do not subscribe to your religious beliefs; therefore, I would not want to live in a society dictated by those beliefs. That's why there's a separation of church and state (at least in theory).
Wrong. Separation of church and state means that the state may not favor one religion over another. It has nothing to do with silencing someone because their opinions are based on religious morals.
quote: "Of course this is the case, nonetheless this does not mean that we can create a society which teaches the opposite of what we value and then expect that everyone's children will of course see through the contradiction and do what's right."
Hmm. So, legally recognizing that two homosexuals have decided to pledge their lives to one another is somehow "the opposite of what we value". 'We' would of course prefer that they have no legal incentive for monogamous relationships whatsoever, right?
I knew that you couldn't resist the temptation to put words in my mouth for long! Maybe if you looked back over my posts you would see that I was commenting about disposable marriages and the social changes which have led us there and not about homosexuals at all. But I doubt it. You simply can't pass up a chance to draw devil horns and a pointy beard on someone.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's not a punishment, it is a test of our compassion."
When animals get rabies, is God testing them?
-------
"I think it safe to say that everyone who has spoken up so far thinks that marriage is an important commitment not to be entered nor left lightly. I think it also self-evident that such a value is not to be found easily in the mainstream media nor in the general societal indicators like divorce rate etc."
It's worth noting that some of the very people who have spoken up so far about the importance of marriage are ALSO people who have contributed to general societal indicators like divorce. Hatrackers aren't all THAT special; we don't revere marriage more than your typical segment of society.
posted
Tom, you kinda missed who was being tested there, didn't you?
The poor fellow who was beaten, robbed and left by the roadside wasn't being tested. He was a victim. It was the people who went by him that were tested, all failing until the Good Samaritan stopped and helped. Understand?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Lord, how I love C.S. Lewis!
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
