posted
So it looks like gay marriage is in and polygamy is out. Man, how we love to pick and choose our favorite minority groups in the US.
Posts: 7083 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully just seeing that in the thread won't be enough to harm children or society. I really should be more careful, I guess, just for responsibility's sake.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't we ask the Cards to compile an über-homosexuality thread, in which everybody's positions on the related issues can be archived, and then we can just quote it or link to it and not have to restate all our old arguments?
We could force people to read it before they can okay the Terms of Service or User Agreement or whatever it is we call it here.
I'm sure Kristine wouldn't mind . . .
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've got no problem with polygamy. It was some of the practices surrounding polygamy that were undesirable, such as pressuring girls into marriage at far too young an age. As far as I'm concerned, polygamy could be legal. It would be interesting figuring out how it would fit into current marriage law re benefits and such.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Scott's defense, there's a difference between making something ILLEGAL -- like outlawing premarital sex -- and granting a legal privilege or endorsement -- like marriage.
Clearly, anti-sodomy laws are outmoded and should be eradicated. However, the argument that we should not extend marriage rights to homosexuals is NOT analogous to saying that we should arrest people who have sex outside of marriage; there's a fairly clear line between the two.
What bothers Scott is that civil marriage says "society approves of this relationship, and we wish you well." Since his society does NOT approve of gay relationships and does not wish them well, he is understandably resistant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the mother of all stupid questions: Why is polygamy illegal? I mean, most of Western society believes in the Bible, and there were a lot of polygamists in the Bible. And not just polygamists, but polygamists who were commanded by God to take multiple wives and concubines. So why is it so taboo in our society?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, do you believe sex outside of wedlock is not a good example for children or society? If so, do you desire it be made illegal?
Yeah, it's a pretty solid fact that sex outside of wedlock is bad for society. It already is legislated against in many states-- just not enforced.
quote:How about smoking?
Yes, I would not cry a single tear if tobacco found itself on the government's hit list, right above marijuana.
quote:is society worse off than it would be if the bible was required reading -- thus making the absence of such a law not beneficial? If so, would you support making the bible required reading?
Depends on whether you want to be a theology or literature major. If not, the Bible should not be required reading.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
That is a good point Tom, and I'm expecting Scott to make that point. Thing is, he hadn't yet. The argument he had offered was vulnerable to my counter argument, which is why I chose it.
One of the biggest problems I've had with debating with people against various things in society for moral reasons is, they have a hard time qualifying why very specifically. I'm hoping we can get more down to the meat of why in order to have an actual discussion on that, instead of on peripheral issues. And the way I'm attempting to do that is by stripping away peripheral issues as they come up.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slightly off topic - are the debates on Hatrack like a debate contest, where you look for a winner, like an academic discussion, where the point is to talk and share, or like a policy meeting, where the point is to select the best course of action with the intent of running with it?
THAT'S the line I would love to see in people's profiles - what they expect from the discussions. Is it the thrill of winning, a chance to gab, or a map to action?
posted
Supreme court decisions have invalidated those laws, scott. They're no longer on the books.
And you didn't answer my question about would it be better for society (thus making it worse for society for it not to happen than if it were) if people were to be required to read the bible.
Lets get more specific, then. Since you seem to (though you did not directly say it) believe that sex outside of marriage should be legislated against (well, it would require a constitutional amendment at this point), effectively enforcing a belief on people who do not have it, what other beliefs would you be ok on enforcing on people who do not have it? Presumably only ones that remove harmful practices, since that seems to be your criteria as established so far. Lets start with some simple ones: recreational rock climbing. There are certainly other recreational outlets, and rock climbing is (I'd bet, and if not we can substitute one that is) one of the recreational outlets with the highest mortality rates. Other than its recreational nature (for which there are substitutes) it yields little to no benefit, and effects considerable harm every time someone dies in an accident. Do you support the outlawing of rock climbing?
Also, in what particular way is homosexuality harmful to society? Your particular objection is something of a black box to me. That is, I would like a proposed chain of events: homosexual person does action x, which causes y, . . . . which results in z, which is accepted as harmful to society.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By no longer on the books I of course mean no longer able to be enforced. They're likely still technically in the books.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't legislate against extra-marital sex. I wouldn't legislate against homosexuality.
I am for legislating against homosexual marriage, because as Tom pointed out, I believe that doing so puts a stamp of societal approval on that relationship.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, lets narrow in then. Do you favor preventing certain heterosexual couples from marrying? For instance, the bible seems to mention in a number of places that cross religion marriages are not ok -- should those couples be banned from marrying? If not, why not?
And still, why is homosexuality harmful to society?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe you're a bigot, or should be branded as such. However, if you don't feel comfortable discussing complicated questions about your beliefs (and I'm not saying you don't, we've been having a good discussion) that troubles me. Discussion is the root of resolution and of moral conscience (imo).
As for your question: no, the two should not be allowed to marry because we have good evidence that a person at the age of thirteen is not emotionally ready to make life impacting decisions of such magnitude.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, your new premise introduces a new, unrelated legal construct, the age of consent.
We can certainly have a debate on age of consent laws (in another thread?), since there are societies which have varying ideas codified in law, but that says nothing about 2 people of the same sex who are of the age of the consent (IOW, adults).
An interesting but irrelevant point of discussion, at least in this thread.
quote:It is undoubtedly for these concrete reasons, as well as for its intimately personal significance, that civil marriage has long been termed a "civil right." See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967) ("Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival"), quoting Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942); Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 56 (1810) (referring to "civil rights incident to marriages"). See also Baehr v. Lewin, 74 Haw. 530, 561 (1993) (identifying marriage as a "civil right[ ]"); Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 242 (1999) (Johnson, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (same). The United States Supreme Court has described the right to marry as "of fundamental importance for all individuals" and as "part of the fundamental 'right of privacy' implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 384 (1978). See Loving v. Virginia, supra ("The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men"). [FN14]
Without the right to marry--or more properly, the right to choose to marry--one is excluded from the full range of human experience and denied full protection of the laws for one's "avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting human relationship." Baker v. State, supra at 229. Because civil marriage is central to the lives of individuals and the welfare of the community, our laws assiduously protect the individual's right to marry against undue government incursion. Laws may not "interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry." Zablocki v. Redhail, supra at 387. See Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 714 (1948) ("There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and reasonable means"). [FN15]
I do like that they linked this decision to Loving. I've always thought of it as being equal to that particular case (or that group of cases) in that one was biased against skin color of the person you wanted to marry and the other biased against the sexual orientation. It's nice to know I think like judge. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: BOSTON - Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney says he'll push for a constitutional amendment to block gay couples from getting married in response to a ruling by the state's highest court that could otherwise let gay couples wed. The court has ordered state lawmakers to find a remedy.
An amendment could go before voters as early as 2006 if it won approval by the end of the 2003-2004 legislative session. It also would require approval during the 2005-2006 session. A joint session of the House and Senate, which rejected the amendment last year, is scheduled to meet to debate the measure in February.
A joint legislative session is scheduled to debate the idea Friday.
Tuesday's ruling was denounced by President Bush (news - web sites) and the Roman Catholic Church. However, for the gay couples involved in the suit there was jubilation, champagne and proposals of marriage.
I knew it wouldn't take long, but I'm surprised at how quickly they are having a joint session to debate the legislation debate for the amendment.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a reply on another board (some Jatraqueros will likely have seen this, being arsians as well) that sums up, almost perfectly, my sentiment in all this:
quote:I don't see how the government is in any way telling people what their religious doctrine is. If a secular definition of marriage affects the religious one, or vice versa, then apparently we should not have secular marriage at all, and merely have civil unions which can be applied for much as a couple married in a church still has to apply for and get a marriage license if they wish the government to recognize their marriage.
Religious marriages are not the same as secular marriage, and a severe lack of understanding on that seems to create a lot of issues. The government has no place involving religion in marriage whatsover, beyond granting a duly appointed religious official (also known as priests in some religions) the ability to perform the same functions as a clerk of the court (depending on state, some require a judge) in the express capacity of performing a marriage for the sake of convenience.
It's not impossible in the least for a homosexual couple to be married religiously, if they are of a religion which allows it. For now it has simply been impossible for them to also have a secular marriage license granted.
Personally I can't stand the idea of civil unions while a perfectly acceptable alternative is still in existence: secular marriage. I don't really care what it gets called as long as it is the same thing for everyone.
*sighs* *shakes her head* it's just a very troubling issue, that some people can not only be that bigoted but also that insecure. Insecure in that they seem to think that what the government says has any effect on their religious faith, which is just so beyond rediculous.
I'd take issue with the term "bigoted", as I think that bigotry is a pro-active term (which I don't see anyone here claiming on doing), whereas I would say that "prejudiced" is the more appropriately passive term (though perhaps too loaded in this day and age to use), but I think the usage of "insecure" is well placed.
posted
I disagree with your characterization of opponents as "insecure." I feel it shows a lack of understanding of the motives, and a pre-emptive labeling of another's emotions. In other words, you can not tell me what it is I am feeling.
I'm trying, Scott. Is that better?Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For my own part I feel that about 90% of the ARGUMENTS used to support the inequality of homosexuals are what demonstrate "insecurity" (fear) or "prejudice" (bigotry) rather than the fact that they are arguing in the first place. It's definitely possible to be against homosexual equality with the purest of intentions; it's just that the logic and the motives don't demonstrably match up in any consistent way.
I've found there's no nice way to make this observation.
As ever, all in my opinion.
Posts: 1307 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
To the response to my point earlier about picketting Disney world: yes, it was primarily the southern baptists, but they and the AME (quite a paradoxical alliance wouldn't you think?) are the body of the conservative evangelicals. If other conservative evangelicals protest as to being judged by the southern baptists' and AME's actions, then maybe they shouldn't group themselves in the same denomination with them.
Also the picketting was quite horrific. Many of the signs the protestors held outside the park included phrases and pictures along the lines of "butt-pluggers," "faggots=maggots" etc. This tactic was used even with all the children present. What gets me is that these groups claim their intent behind opposing abortion is to protect the rights of "unborn" children, yet they have qualms in utterly terrorizing real children at a theme park.
posted
I'm sorry that I was not clear. I don't mean insecure that in the basic emotional sense, though there is obviously worry, which is a close cousin of insecurity (how can you worry without feeling that some part of who you are is being made contingent by outside forces? In less precise terms, how can you worry about something unless that something is in jeopardy or insecure in standing). Or do none of the opponents worry about the consequences, theoretical in this case, of homosexual civil marriage? That seems to be paradoxical, so obviously isn't the case.
I will add, that obviously the supporters of the recent decion have some amount of insecurity as well, in the consequences of continued denied benefits/responsibilities and the stresses that uniquely creates for their relationships. These stresses being manifest today, mind you, not theoretical [EDIT: like the claims of opponents], as by virtue of the inability of homosexual civil marriages, [EDIT: these claims] cannot be tested.
The "insecure" I mean is that Opponents of Homosexual Civil Marriage (hereafter OHCM) find it necessary for the State to not just protect their religion/moral beliefs from restriction by other religious/moral systems, but also to justify theological/moral terms of their religion as they have previously defined them. OHCM are insecure in having the power to define such terms for society as a whole. Of course, they conveniently ignore that civil marriage has been morphing throughout time. It once had provisions for race, and before that social caste as well. Thus to claim to have hold the one true definition of marriage for "3000 years of history" is disingenuous, you are merely defending the de facto definition of the past 50 years, tops.
--- AN (IRRELEVANT) ASIDE: Coincidentally, this all ties into my pet conspiracy theory that it is merely Baby Boomers trying to enforce (subconciously) their nostalgia on everyone, by virtue of them being large both numerically, politically (they have reached the traditional age of high voter turnout), and influentially (they have kids now [being that they are one of the latest procreating generations ever] that they can give their opinions and beliefs to that will be received largely uncritically). Of course the above opinion is truly untestable, and is unnecessary in explaining anything in this discussion, since motives cannot, in debate, be impugned as a tactic (it's essentially a strawman/ad hom combo platter). But it may be interesting to ruminate on from a sociological POV, which is why I interject it. ----
Anyway, if OHCM are NOT insecure, why do they fight against CIVIL marriage definitions being changed? Are they worried/insecure that if homosexuals barge into their churches to get married, or demand that their previous marriages be recognized, that the state will somehow side with the homosexuals, as a result of this ruling??
The reality of today's situation (despite cries of persecution and "Christianity under fire" by some) is that there are many (governmentally protected!) ways to get one's faith's message out, and to increase your flock, and thereby presumably increase the expression of your faith's proper behaviors, or restrictions thereof, that the government cannot lift a finger to stop. Personally, I have never seen so many evangelical Christian shows and networks on basic cable as I have today, and I live in the Belly of the Beast (that's the Boston metro area)! Yet I hear no clamor (nor do I think there is any reason to raise a klaxon) to make that sort of thing illegal, so color me suspicious of such cries. It seems to me to be unnecessary to appeal to legal constraints to stop people, NOT of your faith, from engaging in tangible benefits and responsiblities of civil statutes, due to ultimately religious or otherwise exclusive ideologies.
Gay marriage may prove to be harmful. But you can't be sure that it will be before it essentially exists. We know that right now some amount of people are being harmed, or at least hindered, with the current rules, and we also have (at least in MA) constitutional laws that contradict normal state laws. We have a legal system that can be amended, but the point in time of amendment ought to be when there is provable harm, and not before.
--- Of course, after all of the above, I noticed that kat merely attempted a semantic argument, and tried to implicate it as an ad hominem, and I bit on it. Bravo, kat. You actually did nothing to actually address the main sentiment/argument in the post. I think I have proven sufficiently that it is not a mischaracterization, though. Just because you say it isn't so, doesn't mean it isn't a fact, as born (sp?) out by visible actions.
[EDIT: I would like to apologize already, I see that kat is not being insulting, and my last paragraph certainly is. I am a worse person for it, and I will try to refrain from it in the future. I leave it in as much to remind me, as to remind others, of my crassness.]
quote:Of course, after all of the above, I noticed that kat merely attempted a semantic argument, and tried to implicate it as an ad hominem, and I bit on it. Bravo, kat. You actually did nothing to actually address the main sentiment/argument in the post. I think I have proven sufficiently that it is not a mischaracterization, though. Just because you say it isn't so, doesn't mean it isn't a fact, as born (sp?) out by visible actions.
Bok, thanks for posting the perfect argument against showing any vulnerability, ever.
I don't care how much sense it makes to you in your mind, you can not prove what someone else is feeling. Their own interpretation of their emotions trumps yours at the slightest word.
posted
Sorry, kat, see my edit above, I apologize. I blew my credibility out of the water by adding that last paragraph in.
I will admit, however, to be increasingly frustrated by a lack of admission of vulnerability on the other side of the issue though... I'm getting tired of having to keep what is to me (and only me), the civil high ground, while people are in essence called criminals, and legally more imperfect human beings, and [EDIT: therefore advocating utilizing a government that ostensibly] is supposed to protect everyone and their liberties, and their ability to pursue happiness. It gets to me, and I apologize.
posted
I am prejudiced-- show me a human being who isn't, and I'll show you a corpse.
It isn't that I'm not willing to discuss this, either-- it's that emotions generally run high in a topic like this, and the emotional investment isn't worth the price.
And yes, Caleb, I am scared that my own lifestyle and way of thinking is being erased. You're scared, too, that you'll never get the priveleges you feel entitled to.
As for what damages homosexuality has done to society. . . this is a thorny topic, because everyone has an expert up their sleeve. And not an unbiased expert to be found in the bunch.
Not that I can't do a google search as easy as the next guy. . . but not now. I'm making dinner.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you are right the damages of HCMs are debated, but it is currently a debate of abstraction, theoreticals. The harms that homosexuals are subjected to are real. So what trumps what? As a heterogeneous society with a government that tries to protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for ALL it's citizens, it is clear to me which way expands those principles, and which way concedes those principles as impractical.
Especially since your church's members will not be affected at all by a legalization of civil marriage to homosexuals. You can marry as prescribed by your faith, and your faith can restrict it's rites of marriage as it always has... Just like you are free to restrict which types of baptisms count as real baptisms today.
posted
Perhaps those protestors would be outliers if the southern baptist and AME conventions hadn't supported and praised the protests, even after they were carried out. Unfortunately those protests were apparently directly in line with the official views of both conventions. It is institutionalized homophobia and hatred.
posted
My question to opponents of gay civil marriage remains to be answered: do you wish for your religious values to be reflected in law? Do not confuse the issue by speaking of moral objections to murder, rape, etc. Secular morality already covers those kind of acts quite adequately. I am speaking of religious values, of the kind that makes their incorporation into law impossible without ammending the constitution. Would you support such an ammendment? If so, how can you condemn Saudia Arabia, Iran or other theocracies? Are they not doing essentially the same thing? Better yet, why not use the example of Nigeria, there, individual provinces have Sharia, and it was introduced democratically. How can you oppose something like this, when you wish for a christian equivalent in the US?
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
This last in particular illustrates the difficulties unmarried people have if they are parents. Note: it is not all that uncommon for a gay person to have children from a previous attempt at a heterosexual relationship. Even if they are the sole guardian of the kid (say, the other person is passed away) it is nigh impossible for their significant other to get legal guardianship, such as the ability to make medical decisions for the kid.
posted
Chaeron> I don't know whether you would consider me a theocrat or not. *shrugs*
I don't support unenforceable laws regulating what people do in their homes. Not everything that is immoral can be usefully made illegal.
In the case of marriage, the concept of "homosexual marriage" does not even make sense to me. A marriage involves a man and a woman essentially by definition (as I see it). One might as well talk about a television without a screen, or a refrigerator that doesn't refrigerate. Any relationship between two members of the same sex seems qualitatively different to me from a marriage. So I see no reason to change the very meaning of marriage so that homosexual couples can "get married".
From my perspective, the reason to separate church and state is so that churches can compete freely without state interference. The danger is not that the church will try to regulate the state but that the state will try to regulate the church. So long as the churches do not violate laws that apply to everyone (eg, they cannot go killing or torturing people to persuade them to join), the state should keep its hands off. In this way, the competition is kept on the level of discourse--the level at which people's beliefs are changed anyway.
If a religion really believes it needful to enforce its morality through law, it may as well try. If there are other religions (or non-religious belief systems) that disagree, they can likewise exert their influence to prevent it. If there are no belief systems that disagree, then what's to get worked up about? (No one protests laws against theft, though there have been societies on Earth in which property is held communally and you can take whatever you want, because everyone _here_ believes in property rights.)
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus, I don't know if you are married, but supposing that you are:
Were you asked to say why you married your wife, would you say "because she is of the opposite sex", or "because I wished to spend the rest of my life with her and raise kids with her and never be without her"? That second is what is essential about marriage, whether you define marriage otherwise or not, and homosexual people can have that same feeling. If you don't want to title it marriage, fine, but right now homosexual people are being denied their right to do that -- at least one partner will be without substantial rights in the eyes of the law with regard to important issues such as health, and children, and even being allowed to be together (see: immigration laws).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maccabeus: The problem with your view of the separation of church and state is that it is impossible to have the state avoid interference with religion when religion can influence the state. Religious morality is obviously not a monolithic and unified entity. Different religions disagree. If one dominant religion enforces its morality through law, other religions with conflicting morals and beliefs are made less legitimate. You cannot expect the state to stay out of your church but not vice versa. It doesn't work that way.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, some of the harms are an inability to see your partner while in the hospital, since you don't qualify as "close family"; having an uncle, or sibling who usurps your estate when you die, because power of attorney isn't always enough to supercede familial claims.
Things like that. Things that can be provided through civil marriage. These are real harms, no?
The alternative is to change the terminology of "civil marriage" into "civil union" for everyone, so that all the interested religions can keep their definitions of marriage intact, and in a perceived position of above the law... While actually being irrelevant in the law. To mix the two is simply asking for a "separate but equal" situation, where some gays will perceive state-sanctioned inferiority, and the true bigots on the other side will try all sorts of petty actions to denigrate civil unions (I can see all sorts of various municipal and state laws passed that allow people to bar people in civil unions from all sorts of little things... Which will add up.). And they will be in their right, since I'm sure civil union laws will be interpreted in siome places as only accomodating those benefits/responsibilites as originally specified, and not apply to new social realityies in the future.
And then we'll have to deal with this all over again.
posted
"What damages are being done to homosexuals that granting them civil marriage will cure?"
Well, it really boils down to social acceptance, doesn't it? And almost every harmful aspect of the much-feared and much-maligned "homosexual lifestyle" -- the insecurity, the promiscuity, the acting out, the deliberately skewed subculture -- is a product of social rejection.
Being able to participate in a monogamous relationship that is both sanctioned and encouraged by society would go a long way -- IMO -- towards eliminating all potential harms of homosexuality.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
In answer to Kat's question above, I love to win debates but it's tough on this forum (decisive wins anyway.) Even if you can best one debater handily, 3 more pop up Medusa-like with data fresh from Google that you never considered. But sharing viewpoints is cool, that's the best way to learn, as long as it's civil and folks try to keep an open mind. This homosexual marriage debate thread is more civil than the last one. Sometimes you must agree to disagree.
I don't see much similarity to policy debates at this forum, in that consensus is rarely achieved nor a goal agreed upon.
Usually I just lurk on these marriage threads, but I have a nitpick.
quote: Yeah, it's a pretty solid fact that sex outside of wedlock is bad for society. It already is legislated against in many states-- just not enforced.
Scott.
I think that is overly broad, and opinion, not fact. There are plenty of scientists in various social disciplines who would disagree that all premarital sex is bad for society, and some who think that Christian sexual repression is unhealthy.
If you had said "unprotected and/or teenage premarital sex can be detrimental to the participants and society" I might concede that, I guess.
That's the problem with the social "sciences"--so much is opinion and conjecture, with facts and causation thin on the ground. That's why I like math and physics, a fact is a fact and a proof is by God a PROOF!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
