posted
In regards to the Founding Fathers, yes, I do think it was a fundamental hypocrisy for them to claim to fight for the rights of all men, and to overlook that they meant only white males. Also, I'm sure that most of them were aware of it, and considering they were at war and the alternative was anarchy, made the best of it and prayed their descendents would be wiser and stronger than they.
We are not presently at war, the alternative isn't anarchy, and if you mean stop struggling when you get what you want, that's fine, but you can't claim to fighting for the freedom of everyone.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I suppose you'll teach your kids that our country's founders weren't really patriots because they didn't fight for freedom for all people, just white ones?
I don't have any kids and when/if i do i don't really know what i will tell them.
quote: With virtually everyone in the thread saying that they support polygamy rights, I don't see the reason for your huge hang up here.
I'm sorry, but it is a huge hang up for me. I don't want to take the chance that once gay marriage is accepted all other forms of marriage are forgotten about. There is a long history of this in this country and all other the world.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:once gay marriage is accepted all other forms of marriage are forgotten about
I'm not sure what you mean, here. Are you saying that the sanctity of marriage as an institution between two people should not be changed?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, what i ment to say was that once gay marriage is accepted people woin't continue the fight for polygamy.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I define marriage as a legal bond between a man and a woman.
I'm asking on what you base that definition. I'm assuming there is a religious basis in that definition somewhere, so I ask again, how do you feel justified in supporting a law based not on our American ideals but on your own specific religion?
In other words, I'm quite sure you'd feel more than a little incensed if someone imposed a law on you, denying you a critical aspect of happiness that doesn't hurt them when attained (and this is as close as I can come to "right" without actually saying it), based on their religion which you don't belong to.
But the vast majority of Americans, for secular or religious reasons, see no real problem doing just this to a small minority of people in America today. The justification for many is "God says so". That's not actually what you mean. So long as it's your religion's God, that's apparently a legitimate reason to make law in America.
quote:...implicit societal understanding that a legal marriage, in American society, is between a man and a woman.
"Implicit societal understanding" is not a good enough reason to deny a minority happiness when their happiness doesn't hurt you. I'll replace that with "conservative status quo", and perhaps it doesn't sound so good. This conservative status quo is, in fact, discriminatory and very frequently bigoted, often based on nothing more than, "God said so."
quote:As far as marriage rights go. . . I'd be willing to give up none of them. Is there a reason I should?
Or was that a ploy to 'help' me feel empathy?
Well then, in this particular case, the ploy failed. Or maybe you feel empathy, but are unwilling to do anything about it. That's very nice. -----
quote:Also, I'm sure that most of them were aware of it, and considering they were at war and the alternative was anarchy, made the best of it and prayed their descendents would be wiser and stronger than they.
I wish that were true, and I think it was true for some of them...but it isn't. There were many of the Founders who had complex and well-considered reasons for wanting things like poll taxes, denying votes to everyone but propertied white men, etc. If by "the People" you meant "everyone", well many times the Founders used words like "the mob" instead.
And supposing it is true, it's still a terrible and hypocritical reason. Because the war didn't go on forever.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:it's still a terrible and hypocritical reason.
Yes. That was my point. I adore the founding fathers, but they WEREN'T fighting for freedom for everyone.
I think we create an image of the founding fathers, what we think they should be. I heard this morning on NPR a quote from Benjamin Franklin that he thought the constitution was good but inevitable doomed to failure, because as the people were destined for despotism by nature, they would only be satisfied by the rule of a despot.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: When i say "everbody under the sun" i only mean consenting adults. Beastiality and pediphelia are a diffrent subject. But i don't see why incestuous marriages should be banned. The same taboo that block them were the same types of taboo that block gay marriage.
That makes sense. I mean, when two gay people have sex there's a good chance that one of them will get pregnant. And the mutation rate of children born to a gay couple is just as high as the mutation rate of those born to sibling-sibling or parent-child couplings.
posted
Well this article addresses 1st cousin couples primarily, but it seems to say that, well, they're not so bad.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I'm bumping this thread. Maybe it should die, but it seemed as good a place as any to describe what just happened to me. I just got asked if would sign a petition for the Defense of Marriage act. I said no. And that which ever way you define it, introducing legistlation like that is always a good way to curtail personal freedom for everybody including one man-one woman married couples. The person asking (who probably had a very good idea that I would say no) then gave a "cuckoo" whistle as he walked on past.
I have just experienced firsthand (in a minor way) how some "Christians" who believe in being persecuted for their faith actually find it perfectly acceptable persecute others who don't believe as they do.
I'm still convinced it is human beings that blow, though. Christians who do that aren't doing it BECAUSE of their Christianity, but IN SPITE of their supposed Christianity. And no one group of human beings has the corner on being idiots.
Or on being wonderful, either. It's encouraging.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just had a long, long drawn out lunch discussion on the Defense of Marriage Act topic. It went all over the map but was actually quite good.
One of the topics was the "errosion of freedoms" issue. I guess I live in more of a glass castle than I realized. Some of my co-workers genuinely believe that they have to get this passed, in order to stop a slippery slope that started with not posting the 10 Commandments in schools and they see ending in the outlawing of Christianity and/or the Bible.
The secular argument I actually used was that, if the bill does get passed, it is immediately going to the courts. I, as an American taxpayer do not want to have to pay the millions of dollars it is going to cost the US government for this bill going up the food chain of appeals til it hits the supreme court. One of the guys I was discussing it with is an extreme fiscal conservative and it stopped him for a moment and made him think. (I was tickled I got him to do that at all)
However in the end he feels that the money is worth it because the end result will be keep conservative Christianity legal in the US, and otherwise the slippery slope will be that it eventually get outlawed.
I am glad that both of these guys, even though we have profound disagreements in idealogy do understand that it isn't personal. I get excited when I discuss stuff, and at first they thought I was taking it personally. Once they realized I wasn't the discussion was much better. I don't really know how to change my own style of verbal discussion to clarify this though. It is how I was raised. You get excited and loud sometimes in the heat of the battle of the discussion but it is never personal.
I guess it is the same struggle we deal with here at Hatrack a lot of the times.
posted
As a tangent, I have to admit I find the idea that "conservative Christianity" is becoming threatened is rather laughable, considering that at the same time, many conservative Christian denominations/groups also claim ever increasing membership... And I say this as a member (though lapsed) of a liberal Christian denomination, which certainly gets no love from the conservative Denominations, and is ignored by just about everyone else (Congregationalists who??).
If anything, these desires to legislate certain christian principles will kill off MY denomination, and I worry at the thought of it. After all, if it is IN LAW, you can't really be a Christian without believing in the idea (and, even more importantly, the process that reached the idea) that is legislated, can you?
Legislating conservative Christian principles is useful in two ways to the movement: it helps to legitimize conservative Christianity as the true Christianity, thus marginalizing us, say, UCC Christans (or similar Christian groups), as well as the more public defense of moral and right behavior.
It makes a sort of delicious irony that the only self-professed Christians who may truly be persecuted in the future are the ones that rarely use that excuse in public discourse today.
posted
Well conservative Christianity has used the "us against the world" mentality for at least the past 25 years (as long as I've been alive at least <grin>). It really does fit in with that link Kayla posted a while back about how Bush II uses more adversarial/fear speech in his statments than any other recent President.
In both cases the tactic appears to be working.
I also made the argument, that equally credentialed Biblical scholars can come up with completely different conclusions depending on the preconcieved ideas they started with. Who are "you" to tell them that their ideas are wrong? If they are wrong it is up for God to decide. (This ties directly in with my good people going to hell thread.)
The third argument I used was that we allow the KKK and the Church of Satan to exist regardless of how evil some people view them to be. What if someone came up with a church of George, that said that to be in the church you HAD to be in a married homosexual relationship. You are then directly going against both the establishment of religion clause and and the free speech clause and would have yet another huge legal nightmare on the country's hands that would only serve to divide things further.
Anyway I didn't change their minds, nor did I expect to, but at least maybe I made them think in a direction they normally wouldn't.
Unfortunately their "for the good of society arguments" (which I have seen argued quite convincingly here) were extremely lousy and easy for me to shoot down (I kind of feel guilty about doing it now.) I could have argued their position far better than they could.
posted
Banna- the church of George would be fine by the government. Churches can marry whomever they please to, it's just not a civil marriage if the couple isn't allowed to.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I know that and thought about it after the fact. But these guys weren't quick enough on the uptake to call me on it. I know people just think at different speeds and there is nothing you can do about it but it is more fun when you are discussing something with faster thinking people. At the same time it was good for me because I actually had to articulate ideas that have been percolating in my brain for a while.
posted
Actually, it's an interesting question. Thinking about it, I haven't read the Defense of Marriage Act(s), and with suitably clumsy wording it is possible they ban churches from marrying people.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since this thread won't go away, I thought I'd chime in again. I don't know who originally said this:
quote: once gay marriage is accepted all other forms of marriage are forgotten about
But it goes along with something I've been thinking.
Homosexuality is actually a pretty natural way to want to be. Thinking of all those "Men can't talk" and "Women can't think" jokes we all have heard.
So if it does become acceptable to be married to someone who you are more likely to understand and get along with, I think heterosexual marriage will become fairly infrequent. It may even be looked on as somehow perverse. And I see a time when women are again relegated to second class status as a whole rather than merely in their personal relationships. If you don't believe me, tell me why 90% of the cooks on PBS are men. Even fields typically relegated to women are dominated by men. Also, someone was mentioning most the executives at Mary Kay are men.
Also, I will say again and again that marriage is not a right or freedom. I'll repeat it since I don't honestly believe it was addressed in the four middle pages that I haven't read. If I'm just totally repeating people, well good. I'm sure the other side of the debate hasn't been doing that...
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if it does become acceptable to be married to someone who you are more likely to understand and get along with, I think heterosexual marriage will become fairly infrequent.
Surely you can't be serious.
The only reason I'm attracted to women now is because I know that I'll never be able to marry a man? And this whole time I thought it was boobs.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But these guys weren't quick enough on the uptake to call me on it. I know people just think at different speeds and there is nothing you can do about it but it is more fun when you are discussing something with faster thinking people.
AJ, I can't tell whether you're kidding or not.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I'm serious. I just can't believe this thread is still going and going and going.
Anyway, isn't a metrosexual someone who sleeps with whoever is convenient? How are we going to make sure they get the rights of paying more taxes?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, that's not what a "metrosexual" is. Metrosexual is a rather flippant term that's emerged recently. It refers to the increasing trend among heterosexual professional males to care about clothes, pedicures, manicures, etc. i.e. things that are stereotypically homosexual.
A bisexual is someone who sleeps with / loves / is attracted to both men and women.
And yes, metrosexuals should enjoy the same rights as everyone else. After all, they are consumers too.
Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, a metrosexual is a heterosexual man who pays attention to what he looks like, follows fashion, and basically acts like a gay stereotype while still being attracted to, uh, what Frisco is attracted to.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(shhhh, I only realised that I after I posted... lucky I had that in there so it looks like I was being a smart ass anyway... don't tell anyone that, though) Posts: 2945 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
No Kat I wasn't kidding. I didn't mean it in a derogatory way. In fact I re-worded it three times before I came up with that wording. In reading it again I probably should have re-worded it another five times to work it over some more.
I am not trying to imply they have any sort of disablilty, just that on these sort of topics they think much more slowly than I. Possibly because they are thinking them through for the first or second time while I don't even know how many times I have ventured into the fray on this subject at hatrack alone.
I have been a math and science tutor for a combined total of about 6 years. In that time I had ample way to see the way people assimilate data. Some people think slower than others in different areas. It takes them longer to process data of a particular variety. These guys are an a shop floor for the most part, though both have college degrees. They are quicker thinking and much better than I about how to visualize the way to put parts together.
But, when it comes to a debate on these particular subjects, I'm far more educated and aware of all the arguments that are out there, most of it due directly to hatrack. These guys aren't terribly good at changing verbal-logical viewpoints rapidly and attacking subjects from a variety of directions at once because they don't have the practice that I do.
That is why I felt slightly guilty about it afterwards, they weren't prepared for my arguments or perspectives and I kind of hit them out of the blue with them. On the other hand, the complete unexpectedness of it, probably got them to think out of their boxes more than they would have otherwise.
posted
I should also add the that a Metrosexual cares about many of the things associated with the gay stereotype, but should not be confused with that stereotype as he's also supposed to be a manly man.
Examples of prominent Metrosexuals are David Beckham and Ian Thorpe.
Posts: 2245 | Registered: Nov 1998
| IP: Logged |
posted
AJ, I'm just saying there are possibly reasons other than "they think more slowly than me" for you not getting any response to your post. I mean, that could be part of it, but there could also be other reasons.
Added: Okay, I thought you were talking about Hatrack. That you didn't get responses on Hatrack because you thought much more quickly than the other jatrequeros. That thought seemed so bizarre and so out of character for you I couldn't believe you meant it. And this isn't what you meant! Yay!
posted
Well thanks for the 411 on metrosexuals. I thought it meant bi. I just never clicked on any of the links when I check my hotmail. Still, what about bisexuals? AJ, we all have evolving thought process. For instance, it occured to me this morning that if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry, then when/if gays become allowed to marry my religion will be criminalized. I know that currently gays are the target of a lot of actual persecution, which is wrong and a crime. I believe in tolerance, but I do not believe in acceptance. Tolerance allows people to be free to do what they wish, acceptance is allowing them to affect me in doing what I wish. I think Tolerance can be enforced but acceptance has to be given freely.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, it occured to me this morning that if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry, then when/if gays become allowed to marry my religion will be criminalized.
Why?
How does it follow that if the government allows, say, pornographic films to be made, that the religion against that freedom of speech would be criminalized? They are not. How does "my religion would be illegal" follow the government's allowing of homosexual marriage? It doesn't. Since when has any religion been criminalized? Do you have any precedents for this? Why should America recognize your religion over my religion, anyway? Where in the constitution does it say that conservative Christian values are held in higher esteem by the Supreme Law of the Land than, say, Unitarian Universalist values?
And who convinced you that gay marriage would result in a mass exodus from heterosexual marriage? Do you imagine that heterosexuals everywhere would simply stop being attracted to the opposite sex? Do you imagine that equal rights under the law would change people's opinions/feelings about homosexuality over night? Do you imagine Reverend Phelps getting engaged to a man the day after homosexuals become recognized by the law as equal citizens? Would you yourself consider gay marriage if it were legal? Why do you imagine that so many other heterosexuals would?
After my plethera of posts and arguments approaching the Christian view on homosexual rights as being motivated primarily by fear, how can you see these arguments as being anything else, but, indeed, fear?
The reasons you give for being against equality are, in a nut shell, that your religion would become illegal and heterosexual marriages will quickly become unpopular. Both of these hint at, as I've described before, your motivating perspective: when people are allowed to seek living arrangments that are not 'traditional' or 'God ordained' (with the caveat that we're using YOUR definitions for those terms), everything in society will start to fall apart at the seams.
The TRUTH is that that is simply false, and that there's no logical reason to come to that conclusion at all. Of course, whenever anyone requests proof for outlandish predictions such as these, whenever someone points out that we need real reasons to deny someone their rights rather than vague apocolyptic fears, we inevitably go on for six more pages without ever addressing that issue.
quote:if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry
Caleb, look at what is said.
If it is a hate crime to NOT allow gays to marry, then refusing to marry gays will be a hate crime. In that case the person will have to choose to either compromise the religion or commit a "hate crime."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, it occured to me this morning that if it is a hate crime to disallow gays to marry, then when/if gays become allowed to marry my religion will be criminalized.
Not necessarily-- but a Mormon bishop would not be able to refuse gay couples a civil ceremony.
[ November 14, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Caleb, I think you misunderstood what pooka said. If it is deemed a "hate crime" not to marry gays, then it could make some religions either break the law or compromise their convictions.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, Caleb, you're really screwing up the whole "effeminate gay" stereotype for everyone. People are going to start thinking that homosexuals are all well spoken and intelligent. What kind of sympathy will they get, then?
Couldn't you at least type with a lisp?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But not allowing someone to marry isn’t a hate crime, no one is trying to make it a hate crime, and it doesn’t fit with what hate crime legislation is.
In every hate crime law I’ve ever heard of, a hate crime is a regular crime motivated by someone’s race, gender, orientation, etc. Not performing a wedding is not a crime, therefore not performing a particular wedding can’t be a hate crime.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not necessarily-- but a Mormon bishop would not be able to refuse gay couples a civil ceremony.
I can't prove otherwise, but in order to believe this I'd have to see a law that says that individuals have no right to refuse their services when it comes to performing marriages.
A Mormon bishop would be legally bound to marry a prostitute to a drug dealer if they merely asked? I find that very, very hard to believe.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are the laws for this kind of thing - I mean, can the Las Vegas Chapel of Elvis Love refuse to marry two people because, despite appropriate tests, ages, genders, and non-relatedness, one of them is, say, 95 and the other 30 and the clerk thinks that old lady is having an innapropriate amount of fun?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Religious denominations have long been free to discriminate based on their beliefs. What would change if we were to legalize homosexual marriage?
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I understand it, churches can pretty much arbitrarily decide whether or not they'll perform a ceremony. Justices of the peace, however, cannot turn people away.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know the law for civil marriage, but the decision to perform a relious marriage is completely up to the discretion of the officiating clergy.
posted
More seriously, it could be either. Since the state can’t put itself in the position of judging the validity of religious beliefs it’s fairly easy to be officially recognized as clergy for the purposes of performing weddings. Any of the people here who signed up for that internet ordination thing a while back would qualify.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, thank you for the entirely relevant example from 1883, where the Governor of Missouri--no doubt because he saw no problem in letting his religious views hinder the rights of those with alternative views--proclaimed that it was okay to kill Mormons, because, after all, they were Mormon.
I can totally understand how this historical example of one group of believers oppressing a whole group of people because of their differences in beliefs would lead you to the conclusion that it was perfectly okay for modern Christians to keep homosexuals from their entitled pursuit of happiness.
One wonders what OTHER lessons might be learned from this example.
For the rest of you defending pooka's assertion that refusing to perform a gay marriage might be a 'hate crime'.... let's be a little more factual. Others have already clarified this point, but come on. Since when is choosing not to do a wedding ceremony a crime?
Again, I submit that all of these fears are just that: Fears. They are not concerns. They are not even arguments, for the most part. It's just the irrational idea--not unlike the irrational ideas presented by Lilburn W. Boggs, whom Scott pointed out with his link--that people who don't want to live according to your religion are going to start ruining society.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Pooka![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
<--- from what Frisco said.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
