posted
Agreed, Apostle. But that word is at the crux of so many comments on this thread -- it bears so much weight as the pivot of the argument -- that I'd really, really like to know what it explicitly means to those who've used it, mainly so that I can understand their arguments.
(Pleas, please, pretty please, y'all? I promise not to contend the point, just very curious.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My personal definition? A "right" in this case is something that is due a person or group and enforced by law. I don't believe in divine rights, inherent rights, rights by tradition, natural rights, or any other right that isn't backed up by law and reason. Mostly reason.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a great book about what is a right and a priviledge in American society. It's called "Persons, Rights, and the Moral Community." It's a bit of a difficult read, but really made a lot of these issues clear to me.
Posts: 134 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Either by giving benefits to those who are married, or by forbidding a certain type of marriage.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This account of basic moral rights concerns whether they are necessary, to what kind of being they can be ascribed, their nature, and to whom they extend. Lomansky contends that rights are a kind of shorthand category for well-entrenched moral intuitions, principles, and standards whose aim is to support individualism as of paramount moral significance. The category is useful, he thinks, even though we lack a fully adequate theory generating these rights. They derive from a person's identity as a purposive agent, but must be sensitive also to ends that are not his exclusively. Intended primarily for professional philosophers, the book includes interesting discussions of welfare liberalism and of the (alleged) rights of children, fetuses, animals, etc. Robert Hoffman, Philosophy Department, York College, CUNY
quote:Government should not be involved in marriage in any way.
Or by making divorce laws, or custody laws, or going after dead-beat parents, or having anything to do with wills or inheritance. Those things work out much better when people do whatever they want and the most ruthless one wins.
quote:Those things work out much better when people do whatever they want and the most ruthless one wins.
Of course the government needs to oversee many of these things, but it should not be involved in defining what marriage is, or changing people's rights based on whether or not they are married.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Divorce laws are part of the marriage laws. Custody, inheritance, alimony, testifying in court - those all have to do with marriage laws. If the government has nothing to do with marriage, then it has nothing to do with all of those other things either.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Was that directed to me? No, government involvement isn't/shouldn't be restricted to money situations. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Rob and I disagree ideologically; maybe we can come to an understaning monetarily?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Robespierre said Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Either by giving benefits to those who are married, or by forbidding a certain type of marriage.
These two statements are not equivalent. It’s one thing to eliminate the marriage tax penalty or the various financial benefits available to married couples. This is a fairly simple policy matter and the pros and cons are readily apparent in a debate.
However, marriage has far reaching consequences beyond the obvious “benefits”.
If a person dies without a will, shouldn’t the spouse have a superior to claim to the estate than anyone else?
If a person cannot express their wishes with regard to medical care, shouldn’t the spouse’s statements about the ?
If a person becomes incapable of caring for himself, shouldn’t the spouse be at or near the top of the line in becoming guardian.
All of these questions presuppose that a spouse is identifiable as such. The point is the law uses marriage as a bright-line rule in many of these issues. The exceptions (such as an abusive spouse being denied guardianship of his wife) are fairly easy to define. Without a legally recognized institution called “marriage”, the courts would have to make extensive findings of facts in to determine if a person’s significant other is “significant “enough to grant the S.O. next of kin status. This is highly inefficient and potentially dangerous to justice.
I realize you didn’t call for the end of marriage as a legally recognized institution, but once the law recognizes marriage, it must “forbid[] a certain type of marriage.” For example, consider the communal marriage of 100 men to 100 women. Without making any moral judgment as to the desirability of such an arrangement, it’s pretty easy to see that including it in the legal definition of marriage would make the term “marriage” legally useless.
In this case, the law has four choices: 1) Prohibit people from living in mass communal marriage, 2) Allow it and consider them legal marriages in all respects, or 3) Allow it and do not consider them legal marriages, 4) allow them, consider them legal marriages, but only apply some of the legal principles of marriage to them.
1) is the most offensive to personal liberty. 2) would require radical (and maybe impossible) redefinition of the legal doctrines that rely on marriage. 3) is liberty-friendly and prevents having to revisit legal doctrine and preserves its usefulness in legal determinations. 4) simply implements either 2 or 3 under another name, or makes “marriage” a non-binary determination requiring the same type of legal adjustments as 2).
Clearly I’ve chosen an outrageous example – one that is not intended to provide an analogy or comparison to homosexual marriage in any way. I don’t think the question of legally recognizing homosexual marriage brings these issues into play at all. But the point is that the law must forbid certain types of marriage if it intends to legally recognize marriage at all.
quote:Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Either by giving benefits to those who are married, or by forbidding a certain type of marriage.
What about civil marriages, not performed by any church? Are you saying the government should have no role in this either? In other words, marriage should cease to e a legally recognizedentity altogether?
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
Considering one of the arguments used to counter the idea of gay marriage is that it will cheapen marriage altogether, this supposedly liberal essay seems to play right into that argument.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think Kinsley is anywhere near the mainstream, even mainstream liberal, with this particular idea, then you probably believe that liberals really are the Boogeyman incarnate.
I'm sure some libertarian has proposed similar ideas; libertarians are often associated with the right. In other words, cherry picking an opinion of someone, who is writing at least partially tongue-in-cheek (his main rationale for his "privatizing marriage" appears to be because he's sick of all the debating and arguing about it), especially since no liberal here has argued it (rather, it is a poster most would identify as right-wing), is specious.
That said, I think that people are irrational about this subject. Irrational, in the sense that marriage, in a legal, non-religious sense, is recognized by the federal government, AND, more importantly, conveys on those entering the state of marriage certain rights and obligations, which, when looked at in toto, show to be advantageous... Not in a strictly fiduciary sense, but more in a civil liberties sense. Marriage allows both parties extreme amounts of power in the other's life, as a de facto right, meaning an essentially unassailable/unchallengeable legal power. Let's face it, no matter what your opinion is on the derivation of rights are (God, the Constitution, physical power, societal consent), pragmatically rights affect us all only insofar as they provide legal power, notably by protecting an action of an individual from legal cupability. Religious marriage is something that each church is free to give as they desire/are commanded. If a gay Mormon (or Jew, or Bahai) wants to be married in a church justified way, it is not within the government's power to compel the church to cave in.
In this light, I think it is interesting to note that the Constitution has one amendment appealled... And that was an amendment that curtailed civil rights by decree. Every other amendment that has any ruling on civil liberties has broadened citizens civil liberties. Marriage is a civil liberty, because citizens are allowed to, but not compelled, to enter into it. Therefore I think any freedom loving patriot* ought to support broadening the qualifications for legal marriage.
-Bok
(*) I just wanted to be able to draw on patriotic ferver once, in an argument. Plus, I think it's defendable.
Posts: 7021 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
To bring up a point Lalo made and elaborate on it...
In most of the actions that are considered "sinful" by the Bible, like those mentioned in the 10 Commandments...thievery, adultery, lying, murder, etc...there's a clear third party who is being harmed. There is you, the sinner, and Some Other Guy whom you decided to hurt. Some actions which in the far past have been considered "sinful," like the oft quoted "cutting of the hair" and others, have been thrown away in modern times because obviously, cutting your hair doesn't do any harm to anyone. I've never met anyone, in person or on this forum, who has given me a valid way homosexuality "harms" another. I'm not even talking about adoption here, that's another basket of eggs altogether...I'm talking about the act itself.
Explain to me how it is harmful, in *any* way, and I'll actually listen to arguments as to how it's therefore a sin.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
If you limit marriage to the union between a man and a woman only, so as to prop up the conservative, and possibly moderate Judeo/Christian view of marriage, what happens if the church I am a member of performs a wedding between a man and another man?
Is this church breaking our new law? Can or should we arrest the minister and throw them in jail?
Will it go to the Supreme Court, where the law will be overturned as flagrantly ignoreing the Freedom of Religion clause?
If, worse, we have a constitutional ammendment created to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and my church performs the wedding, do we take this to the Supreme Court to decide which Ammendment holds sway, Freedom of Religion or Marriage Definition?
The whole Gay Marriage argument is not what people fear it is.
It is not an attempt for religious believers to push their views on an uncomfortable larger public.
Its a drastic defense of conservative christians who fear their Christianity is under seige by liberals. They fear that Sinners are seeking to infiltrate and destroy Christianity in general. They are resorting to secular law as an, any port in a storm-defense. If they make Homosexuality illegal, or recognize homosexuality as legally unacceptable behavior, then they can keep homosexuals from their Christianity.
Then there are the Wovles in Shepherd's Clothing, the Ceasar's in Temple Robes, the politicians behind the pulpit, on TV, and eternally running for office who abuse this movement to get votes and power and the applause of their congregations.
The people I know who want to get married do not do so for the benefits, or for the legal rights. They do so for they are seeking God's loving blessing on their lives and their relationship. (this too has been taken up by the Gay equivelant of the Wolf in Shepherd's Clothing and been abused for votes and backing.)
Many argue that you cannot get God to approve such a relationship, so condemned in the bible, none the less bless it.
That is their beliefs, and I won't argue them.
However, it is the beliefs of many that you can, that God's love is not bound by rules and laws written 20 centuries ago.
I won't argue those either.
What I will argue is for one of the basic tenets of this country is the freedom of each person to decide their own spiritual way. I greatly object to anyone, even those I agree with, demanding that their view should be the law for all.
(Edited to change a "your" to a "their". Unless you have told us, I don't have a clue what your beliefs really are.)
quote: And heh, good lord. This is quite possibly the first time in any of these arguments that I've ever been accused of being on the side of the self-righteous. If you're feeling like a scumbag, Nick, maybe you should consider why. You have yet to justify any of the beliefs you've stated in this thread, regardless of the immense harm they can and have and do cause a great many people.
I don't feel like a scumbag. Another assumption on your part. I have justified my beliefs. Just becuse you don't believe in my justifications (Bible verses), that doesn't mean that I'm wrong, or that I'm a scumbag, it means that YOU think I'm wrong. It means that YOU think I'm a scumbag. And that's fine. But, your opinion isn't shared by everybody. Not many people think I'm a scumbag.
You won't bend. You couldn't possibly think: "Maybe Nick believes what he is saying, and maybe it's just my opinion that he's a bigot".
I have explained as much as I care to.
You obviously have too many issues against my belief for any rational discussion to continue.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Explain to me how it is harmful, in *any* way, and I'll actually listen to arguments as to how it's therefore a sin.
I can see what point you're trying to make, but it only works if you sucessfully define what a sin is, and what determines an act sinful. You didn't do that, and therefore, you point is moot.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
She was saying that to for something to be a "sin", it ought to have negative repercussions, such as hurting other people or oneself. She was also saying that she's never heard a viable explanation for putting homosexuality, a trait that millions quite happily live with every single day, into that category.
posted
So what, for you, is the difference between loving another man and cutting your hair? Are they not both deliberately acting against the "known will of God"?
... I can't believe I'm posting right now.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I greatly object to anyone, even those I agree with, demanding that their view should be the law for all.
Of course. But if homosexuals say that their actions are not against what God meant for them and started a church that allowed homosexual marriage, they would have to disregard some of the Bible. Or they would have to greatly change the most well-believed interpretations to fit their uses.
I'm not speaking for all Christians, obvioulsy. dkw can explain much better than I can about how much differently the Bible can be interpreted. I'm just sharing the most widely-believed interpretation (which I believe myself).
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're going to give examples of other things forbidden by the Bible, the hair-cutting one doesn't work. The only people forbidden to cut their hair are those who choose the (TEMPORARY) status of nazirite, not the populace at large.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: So what, for you, is the difference between loving another man and cutting your hair? Are they not both deliberately acting against the "known will of God"?
... I can't believe I'm posting right now.
Some would say that the translation of Leviticus (the book that says not to cut your hair) is not the best. Some would argue that it's obscure at best. I try not to use verses from that book to prove anything, so I can quite easily say that I believe that cutting my hair is not against "the will of God."
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not calling you a bigot. I am well aware of how mainline Christianity views homosexuality, and I know you aren't against it just willy nilly. That doesn't change the fact that my rights are being infringed...
(Aside: you guys who continually argue that marriage is not a right should reexamine your thoughts in that regard. How would you react, Doug, if you and your fiancee, male and female, were denied marriage benefits because you didn't agree with the local religion? Would you be offended at that point and demand your right to be married? Or would you accept that it was not the will of the community that you be wed and just move on? I think you're taking this "right" for granted because it IS readily available to you and your partner with no restrictions whatsoever.)
...and millions of lives are affected by Christianity's active campaign to keep homosexuals from being equal in partner benefits.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, btw, Lalo is right that the LTSHTS has been refuted MANY times on Hatrack. Whether or not you would side with any of the refutations is up to you, of course, but I myself have written a few, as has Bob Scopatz, Lalo, and others. I recommend Bob's the most, because he's smarter than all of us combined.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in agreement with Nick. I don't think the government should disallow same sex marriages. Although I believe it is a sin, I can't see a concrete way in which it harms society enough to justify denying it to monogamous gay couples. This is one of those areas where I can't force my beliefs on others. I think it is wrong because I see it as a sin, but many others don't.
I do not, however, believe that churches should be demonized for claiming that it is a sin and refusing to accept it.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And, btw, Lalo is right that the LTSHTS has been refuted MANY times on Hatrack. Whether or not you would side with any of the refutations is up to you, of course, but I myself have written a few, as has Bob Scopatz, Lalo, and others.
If a "refutation" has to be believed to be in fact a "refutation", it was never a refutation in the first place. To refute somebody is to bring facts into light to show them without a shadow of a doubt that they are wrong. Nobody had done that yet to my knowledge, and I have been here a little while. Not that long, but a little while.
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Wetchik, I would one day like to own a home with a life-long partner of mine and I would like to file a joint tax return with him and I would like to be able to put him on my health insurance plan and I would like to be able to see him when he's in the hospital, and I would like to be able to show the rest of the world that a homosexual is a type of human being rather than a sexual deviant.
I don't need acceptance from the Church community, or the community at large really, but I need them to keep their judgments to themselves.
I would also be happy to live in a society where a homosexual kid doesn't have to be afraid to be himself in order to get through life to adulthood, as I was. I think that if we had homosexual marriages it would go a long way towards making America a safer place for homosexuals, mentally speaking.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wetchik, I was not using "the Law" in regards to Church law. I was referring to Secular Law. So that those people who do not believe in the Bible are not restricted to laws based solely on biblical teachings.
Or people who believe different interpretations of the Bible are not restricted, legally, into following rules that come, solely from the more common interpretations.
If there are other reasons for these rules and limitations, then fine. I am only referring to laws and limitations that come from specific religious interpretations.
I have no problems with your beliefs. You believe that the act of homosexuality is a sin and can not be condoned with the blessings of marriage.
Fine. I admire you for standing up for your faith, and doing it in a logical way.
There are some Christian denominations (the Episcopal church for example) and some more liberal members of many denominations who disagree.
I am no expert on biblical studies so I will leave that to the experts.
Our constitution says that such disagreements and religious debates are to be held in forums such as this, and not summarily ruled on by the government.
PS, the Haircutting thing has some holes in its logic. May I suggest you switch to Eating a Cheeseburger? That is forbidden for Beef and Milk Products are not to be served and eaten together.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Wetchik, I would one day like to own a home with a life-long partner of mine and I would like to file a joint tax return with him and I would like to be able to put him on my health insurance plan and I would like to be able to see him when he's in the hospital, and I would like to be able to show the rest of the world that a homosexual is a type of human being rather than a sexual deviant.
I'm not against civil unions Caleb. They would provide all the things you said above. I'm just saying I believe that it's against God's will for homosexuals to be binded by the Christian Church.
What will marriage in a church give you that a civil union won't?
Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well let's ease off the semantics for a bit.
To "refute" something does not necessarily mean to disprove with facts. It often does involve facts, but the verb "to refute" something means "to deny the accuracy or truth of" that something, which could be just argument or just facts.
Furthermore, the Hatrackian refutations of LTSHTS often DO involve facts. It's the interpretation of all this facts and arguing that matters, and that's what I was saying was up to you.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are some Christian denominations (the Episcopal church for example) and some more liberal members of many denominations who disagree.
True. I disagree with their belief, but I know they exist.
quote: That is forbidden for Beef and Milk Products are not to be served and eaten together.
Where did you get that?
quote: Fine. I admire you for standing up for your faith, and doing it in a logical way.
Thank you, and I admire you for trying to argue with one as as stubborn as myself. Lalo doesn't feel that I have been logical at all.
quote: Well let's ease off the semantics for a bit.
To "refute" something does not necessarily mean to disprove with facts. It often does involve facts, but the verb "to refute" something means "to deny the accuracy or truth of" that something, which could be just argument or just facts. Caleb: Furthermore, the Hatrackian refutations of LTSHTS often DO involve facts. It's the interpretation of all this facts and arguing that matters, and that's what I was saying was up to you.
posted
I don't see the point in granting "civil unions" if they are the same thing as a marriage. Just call it a marriage.
That doesn't mean denominations who believe it is wrong have to perform the ceremony in their church or validate it in any way.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not often that we get to see Lissande streak through a thread.
My main problem with civil unions, at least as they are interpreted in Vermont, is that it doesn't extend to heterosexual couples who don't want to get married. If that were the case, I would seriously consider getting a Civil Union with my girlfreind, which would better represent our relationship.
quote: The dietary food laws. Basically, one of the Kosher laws.
People of the Jewish faith follow Kosher laws, not Christians. Christ explained it in the New Testament I believe. Posts: 354 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
<--- honest puzzling-through-this question)![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
I promise not to contend the point, just very curious.)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Lalo doesn't feel that I have been logical at all. ![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
