posted
Hey mack, I love that you did lots of research and presented lots of stuff. I hope you didn't think that I was ignoring your post. I'm just reaffirming the need for good information to make it out there.
And Farmgirl, I was addressing your suggestion that gays can simply write down a few legal documents and be done with it. Are you convinced that maybe gay couples are missing out on a lot of priviledges given to straight couples? Maybe homosexual couples deserve those priviledges, too.
Hey Macc, I know you're okay with the civil union, civil marriage terminology. I was addressing it to people who have a problem with the semantics. Diff paragraph, diff audience =)
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to make sure people understand the sorts of rights involved with marriage, and which sorts of rights homosexual couples do not get access to:
quote:Love and Law, in other words, are not the separate concepts you are making them out to be. Law is merely the expanded version, Love the summary
Can you quote me a passage where Jesus said it was Love when you denied a citizen equal opportunity? If, by Paul's own words, we all have sinned before God, why are we singling out homosexuals to not have the same right to marry as everyone else? I'm not saying the church must endorse homosexuality, I'm saying the church is not, despite what it thinks to the contrary, the sole arbitter on the rights and privileges for the human race. When people use biblical quotes to argue against giving homosexuals equal rights, then they are acting as sole arbitters of the human race. When the church is sinless, when there isn't some scandal in the leadership of some church body, then they can cast the first stone at a homosexual couple. This has yet to have happened.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're just too scared to look outside their narrow view, and try to accept something they don't understand.
So you know the internal motivations of everyone who thinks homosexual actions are sinful? Did you arrive at this knowledge magically? Or were you divinely inspired?
quote:They don't even think that when Jesus taught 'love thy neighbor', he didn't mean, 'love your neighbor who isn't gay'. He meant everyone, but that's just a little too hard for them to comprehend.
It's possible to love someone and still think that some of their actions are sinful. I believe so, and in fact need it to be so since otherwise God wouldn't love me.
quote:By the way, in warding off the no-doubt irate posts I'm going to field, I define love as un-reserved acceptance, with no thoughts of their 'sin', or their 'wrongness'. Anything like that creeping in is just a lesser form of judgement.
Love might involve unreserved acceptance of people. It is certainly not unreserved acceptance of their actions. Otherwise, how could you love racists or slaveholders?
Dagonee P.S. To fend off reactions, I'll post the usual disclaimer that I am in favor of homosexual couples receiving the same legal recognition and benefits as heterosexual couples, and, as I have stated in other threads, think that the civil/legal aspect of marriage should just be renamed "civil union." Let each person entering into it attach their own definition of marriage on according to the dictates of their conscious if they desire anything more.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:He isn't forcing anyone to get married. He isn't forcing the citizenry of San Francisco to break the law. There is no coercion on his part which is part of abusing power. He is inviting people to participate in what IS given to them in the constitution, despite the unconstitutional law.
Okay, then a different counterexample perhaps...
Let's say a mayor of some city decides on his own that the free speech clause of the constitution really does give public schools the right to say prayers over the school loudspeakers. You're saying it's okay for him to allow the city schools to have prayers, provided there's no coersion on his part?
Or let's say some mayor thinks anti-drug laws should be eliminated. Are you saying he has the right to allow drugs to be sold unhindered in his city, provided he doesn't force anyone to use them?
Or let's say some mayor in some city is particularly fundamentalist, and thinks men should have the right to abuse their wives if they want to. Are you saying he has the right to allow abuse of women in his city, provided he doesn't actually force them to do it?
Or let's say some mayor of some city is a pedophile, and believes the laws should be changed to allow the kidnapping and rape of children. So, he declares that people can kidnap kids, bring them to his jurisdiction, do whatever they want with them, and have no fear of being arrested as long as they stay within the boundries of the city. Are you saying this sort of civil disobedience is acceptable, provided he merely offers these people the opportunity, and doesn't force them to do anything?
There is no shortage of examples, some contraversial, some more blatantly wrong. But all these are examples of people in power who want to advance a certain political view, and think they can do whatever they want to advance it. They are all cases of a public official using his public powers to advocate his own personal cause, in the name of civil disobedience.
And you can't just come out and say "Well, I think this San Fransisco guy is right, so he can do what he wants, but I think these other people are just wrong, so they can't do civil disobedience for their own views." If you let a liberal mayor do it, conservatives are going to feel they can do it too, and they won't be asking you beforehand. If they have the power and think it's okay, they'll just go ahead and do it like this mayor has, and you'll be the one left on the sidelines complaining about 'abuse of power'.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh holy crap. I didn't think there could be such a thing as a post longer than mine, but Lalo managed it
quote:What I find remarkable about this paragraph, Geoff, is that you seem to be implying that it's okay to keep homosexuals as a sub-class of society because they're not an ethnic group -- if they were, though, of course it would be wrong to deny them equality.
What I was really trying to say is that you (and many others who agree with you) are leaping rather quickly to the name-calling phase, tarring people opposed to gay marriage as bigots who probably want to see black people in chains, Japanese in camps, and women barefoot in the kitchen. I'm saying that homosexuality is a different thing because instead of being an issue of race, heritage, or gender, it's an issue of psychology, whose cause we have yet to reliably determine. We don't know how black-and-white the distinction is between gays and straights, what causes that distinction, or really, what the healthiest way to address homosexual feelings might be, or if there is more than one legitimate way, based on the source or strength of those feelings. All we have is idealogies informed by biased, contradictive studies and sources on both sides. So forgive me if I show a little skepticism on this subject, rather than leaping into the fray defending something that I do not yet know to be right. I do not see why this should make me a bigot or whatever nasty word you want to call me today.
quote:Heh. Yes, Geoff, there's a gay agenda. They're trying to rule the country! Corrupt our children! Clog up our toilets! C'mon, dude, I usually have respect for you. Earn it as you usually do.
If you have ever shown me the least respect, this is the first I've heard of it But I appreciate the patronizing tone. The gay agenda is: To mandate that homosexual relationships be recognized as equivalent to heterosexual relationships, in all ways, under the law. I personally find this counterintuitive, since they are, in fact, different things. For example, the continuation of our species depends on stable heterosexual relationships producing healthy children. I didn't make that up, nor did I arbitrarily invent it to persecute someone. It is the major reason why heterosexual marriage has been protected by law for ages, and I've really yet to see any similar compelling reason brought up to support the protection of homosexual marriage. Do you have one? I'd love to hear it. Persuade me.
quote:There is no "gay political agenda," except for the drive to get equal rights -- they're not seeking preferential treatment. If any group's seeking preferential treatment, it's the side that wants to prevent other monogamous couples from equality. Guess which side that is, Geoff?
See, this is all semantics. You say "equality" when you mean to recognize two different types of relationships as the same thing. I, personally, call recognizing them as different things "intellectual honesty". If we approve gay marriage, will we then create a new word for the practice of linking a mating pair of humans in a stable household? Or will the word "marriage" be widened to include all sexually-charged friendships between two humans, viable or not, in the interest of not hurting some humans' feelings by making them feel different?
quote:Are you so incapable of addressing why homosexuals don't deserve equal rights that you resort to false ad hominem attacks? It's pathetic, guy.
Am I the only one who thinks this complaint is particularly funny following so closely on the heels of ...
quote:Don't be a jackass, Geoff.
Dude, you have got to start looking in the mirror now and then. It might help you notice that beam in your eye
quote:But all that's happening here is the gift of equality to citizens -- exactly what's in accordance with the national and Californian Constitutions. Newsom's not ramming new laws down Californian throats -- Newsom's simply acting as the Constitution mandates he should.
You applaud him for being such a freethinking revolutionary, yet you try to explain away his behavior as simply following the letter of the law? Cute. This guy is using his authority to pick and choose the laws he thinks the people should follow, at his whim. That's what dictators get to do. I don't want those in my country.
Look, my people gave up a treasured marriage practice over a hundred years ago in order to live in peace with the will of the people in our nation. I think that as a Mormon, I am in a pretty unassailable position when I ask another minority group to do the same, at least until the rest of us are sufficiently persuaded. I don't think anyone should have the right to ram new laws down the throats of the American people without their approval.
quote:I had no idea I was a man-hating misanthrope, Geoff.
If you believe that the lack of a father in a home can be a bad thing, then that statement doesn't apply to you.
quote:You're not the only one that hates the idea that kids grow up in broken homes. I fully agree. And yet, if the alternative's growing up in a united, but abusive home, I fully support the right of women and men to seperate from their abusive or adulterous or neglectful spouses.
If you're saying that the ONLY alternative to divorce is abusive marriages, then you do live in a skewed world I think that divorce FOR CAUSE (such as adultery or abuse) is totally warranted, and is often in the best interest of the children. But divorce just because the couple is too lazy or childish to settle minor differences is pathetic.
quote:We did? That's news to me -- I had no idea abortion was instituted for purposes of removing responsibility and establishing equality. Can you provide any evidence over that, or is abortion just a favorite bugaboo that you wanted to complain about?
Then you explain to me why abortion is a part of the modern feminist movement. If it wasn't instituted as a means of establishing female equality, what is it doing there?
quote:What I love about all these analogies, Geoff, is that you're trying to "prove" with them that homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry.
What I love is that you see even a moderate, skeptical position as an antagonistic one. All I'm saying is, I'm not yet persuaded that this is the right course, and I believe I have good reasons to question the wisdom of this change. I'm inviting you to persuade me, but all you're interested in doing is insulting me and repeating the same tired rhetoric, leaning on semantics to make my position look bad without actually addressing it. Your lack of ability to create a compelling counterargument isn't doing a lot to make me feel wrong
quote:And why did you think you would show why homosexuals shouldn't have the right to marry with analogies that show the dangers of abortion (which homosexuals don't need), the merits of marriage (which homosexuals long to be able to participate in), and divorce (which 60% of all heterosexual marriages end in)?
I would love to see the percentages on homosexual relationships that last until death. Do you think they're higher or lower than 40%?
Since there are never any joint children, it's not like any such couples will need to stay together "for the sake of the kids". Come to think of it, what higher purpose DOES a homosexual couple have to stay together if they begin to argue and dislike one another? I can't think of a one, please inform me.
But if I'm right, and there isn't a higher purpose, then what is the point of getting married and obligating one another to stay in a relationship, even when it gets hard? It makes sense to insist that mating pairs of humans stay together through thick and thin, for the sake of the next generation, but why put homosexuals under the same restrictions?
Of course, these days, with easy divorce, there are no such restrictions, are there? Marriage isn't an obligation, anymore, it's more like a temporary, handshake agreement. Maybe marriage is already dead, and this is just the final, defiant nail in the coffin.
Perhaps if we still considered marriage to be a lifelong responsibility and an honorable burden, rather than a "fun thing to do when you're in LUUV!" it wouldn't be an issue of equal rights. Gays want to be free of the responsibility of living a heterosexual lifestyle and continuing the species, so that they can pursue their own psychological preferences. That's fine, I will fight to the death to preserve their right to do so. But it seems really counterintuitive to willingly abandon something, and then demand the right to be recognized as though you were doing it.
Marriage is supposed to be a difficult, but rewarding, obligation taken on by men and women who wish to mate. Those who wish to do something else should do something else. This shouldn't be an argument.
Hmm. Interesting. I seem to have talked myself into actually directly disagreeing with gay marriage Either way, I'm open to being persuaded. Just show me a compelling reason why I'm wrong, without resorting to demonization and pointless semantic arguments, and I'd love to listen.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: She calls homosexual people "the gays." Somehow I doubt she knows any.
I assume you are referring to me in this.
I have several friends and acquaintances that are gay. I have one very close cousin who is openly gay and I love him dearly -- we think very highly of each other and enjoy spending time together. He and I have touched on this subject as well, and can talk about it with civility (unlike you) and can both see each other's viewpoint without necessarily fully agreeing with each other.
posted
Here's the puzzling thing.... Why do straight couples get legal marriage? After all, marriage is, in your terms, a binding relationship for the purpose of mating. A religious ceremony often celebrates the beginning of that. Then why federal marriage? Do they really need the government to okay their right to stay together and mate?
I argue that the reason people get the legal marriage is multifold, but includes the wish to have conferred upon them the over 1400 automatic rights granted to a partnership. Some of those rights are there to protect future children. Many of those rights are to protect each spouse.
There seems to be the Ideal Example: a straight couple who marry in order to remain together for life and make children. Great. Except for the multitudes of straight people who marry each other for life and don't make children together. Either they don't, they can't, or they won't (etc). Fertility problems abound. Conscious choice abounds. But you wouldn't automatically restrict their right to legal marriage. Because you understand that they still do love each other. And they often find ways to solve this problem. They adopt, they raise pets, they use fertility drugs, they get artificial insemination, they get a surrogate, they have no children at all and decide that they're alright.
But those children aren't "theirs." How could they love those children as much as those parents who can make their own? But they do. Truly, they love those children. So the legal rights to protect their kids are necessary. And even those legal rights to protect each other are necessary. We're happy for those families, the ones that make it work, even though it seemed futile for them.
Now we get to the homosexual couples. Yes, many of them settle down and stay with the same person for years, decades, a lifetime. I don't know a statistic for "divorce-equivalent." But the statistics on those hundreds of marriages in San Francisco will be interesting. Many of them have been together for decades, leaping at this chance.
Why are they getting married? Again, there's a multitude of reasons. I'm sure I can't think of them all. Social acceptance. Celebration. Legal rights. Political Motivation. And yes, many of these couples have children. Through adoption, through surrogacy, through insemination, through a multitute of other means. And they love their children. Even though both partners are not related to the child. Just as a step-father can love a child, these people can love their children. And those children should be afforded the same priviledges as children whose parents are straight and married.
I don't want to argue no-fault divorces with you. I really don't feel strongly enough about that issue. But the faces of the gay population are many. For every example of a druggie gay man, or a lesbian who never settles down, there is an example of Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who got married after 51 years of being together. Or Wendy Higgins-Goodell and her partner who got married after 13 years of being together and have a one-year old baby that is her partner's by artificial insemination.
I want those people to be able to celebrate their partnership, and I want them to be legally recognized.
posted
I've got a side question that is related, but not directly.
I am currently operating under the assumption that G.W.B is making all of the noises about a constituitonal ammendment on marriage to appease a significant part of his voting bloc. I don't think the man will actually push the bill, though he might produce it, because if the bill passes it will alienate another siginificant part of his voting block that feel that the government should stay out of everything personal of everybody. Many of these types don't get married because they don't want it on paper anywhere that they are actually married.
Anyway, I could be wrong. If GWB actually makes a serious attempt to push this bill through I won't vote for the man. Because like Bob_Scopatz, I think they have better things to do, includling trying to balance the budget, than getting kerfluffled over this.
posted
Banna, yeah... I believe that an amendment concerning Marriage definement might go badly with those who believe strongly in States' Rights. Pat Buchanan, for example, seems to believe very strongly that each state should make decisions on sodomy. The correlation is that he wouldn't be so happy with GWB pushing for a federal mandate like this.
posted
Geoff: And to back out of another potential non-argument,... I don't think the Mayor is necessarily right in giving those marriage licenses. He's making an interesting stand on an important topic.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The most interesting thing about this event is that someone will have to go to court to anull these marriages (assuming the local recorder is the final non-judicial authority on the subject).
It was an interesting tactic to change the initiative, if nothing else. Now people opposed will have to say, in public, "make these people not married because they're gay." It's a little different argument to make than "I'd love to record these people's marriage licenses, your Honor, but it's just not within my discretion."
posted
This is not really the central topic of this thread, but I can't let this comment of Geoff's pass unremarked:
quote:We legalized abortion, thinking of it as a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men.
Is that the reason we legalized abortion? Silly me. I thought it was to prevent any more women from dying in botched backroom abortions or self-induced abortions. At least, that's what was talked about back when abortion was first legalized.
I don't recall anyone ever suggesting using abortion as "a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men." That's what contraceptive methods are for, and they began to be widely discussed, with the goal of educating women about them, during that time period.
posted
For those that object to Gay marriges on religious grounds, what about Atheist who marry? Are those covered under religion? What about JP marriges? Those are performed by state/county officials, not clergy. Are those bound under religion? THAT my friends is the crux of the matter. Government has stuck its nose into Marriage thus making it a secular affair.
Those that object on moral grounds, it was morally acceptable to deny Blacks the Right to Vote, To be paid equal measure for work performed, servitude (Sharecroppers anyone?) Is that still morally acceptable? If so then we need to turn back 40 plus years of Affirmative Action and the Civil Rights afforded to minorities.
Was it morally right to have laws banning interracial marriages?
If you answer No to any of those, then what is the difference in Gay marriges?
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I mean, really, the only reasons I get upset about this issue are:
1) There are contributing citizens who do not have the same rights as everyone else, and I'm ashamed of us as a Nation for not just looking at the issue and figuring something out.
2) It strikes me as very hypocritical for our President and his party to call themselves "defenders of the Constitution" while promoting an amendment that would restrict personal freedoms for any person or group of people on any basis OTHER THAN the need to promote life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens. (i.e., by the way, this takes care of all "other considerations" as far as I'm concerned -- you know, how it's okay to pass laws based on morality when it's for things like murder, but not when it's for things like restricting gay people.)
3) I personally do not think that religion is a good enough reason to pass a law. For every religious belief out there of the majority, there is a LEGITIMATE, non-harmful opposing opinion from another religion that OBJECTIVELY is just as valid to its practitioners. And we haven't even reached the idea of what to do about atheists and agnostics who also have a right to be represented. So, basically, I think laws should focus on the things we want to achieve based on our founding principles -- I'm coming back to life, liberty and ht pursuit of happiness -- and not come from anyone's Scripture, no matter how many people believe in that Book.
4) There are always going to be things we debate and fret over. As social change occurs, its going to be uncomfortable for some. But we can usually tell what the right thing to do is FOR AMERICA, AS AMERICANS. And the general rule is "everyone gets to do what they want as long as that doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to the basic pursuits of life, liberty and the pursuit of happines. In other words, most of the stuff surrounding this issue is nobody's damned business, and certainly not the government's.
So, we should end the debate and get out of the way of people pursuing their own happiness without doing harm to anyone else.
Okay...now here's where the reductio ad absurdum comes in. But wait! That means people will start marrying their dogs or having multiple spouses, or what have you! Where will it end?
And all I have to say to that is it is a piss-poor reason to continue denying basic equality to a class of living, breathing AMERICANS because of a worry about something far-fetched that no-one is even asking for now.
And if you're that worried about it, then work on passing THAT law, but get the heck out of the way on gay marriage because the situation we have is bad now and people who are contributors to this society shouldn't have to wait, or beg, or fight for the rights that everyone else gets as a matter of course. And fairness is more important than absurd-extreme arguments.
So, I think this issue is resolved. What we need now is for everyone to just agree to the above, write to their congressional representatives and let's get off the damn subject and onto something that actually isn't such a no brainer!!!!!
Thanks...
I'll take my fee in small private islands...
BY THE WAY...by my criteria above, we could legitimately argue the abortion issue... It all depends on at what point during gestation something becomes SOMEONE and that SOMEONE is considered imbued with the rights of an AMERICAN. I figure that point is reached when you are able to vote or fight for the contry, or when you get your first paycheck (whichever comes first). But others, I understand, but the point much earlier in the life cycle of humans.
posted
Sun, I don't believe that marriage exists so that happy, lovey-dovey couples can celebrate their relationships and have them legally recognized. I believe it exists because it is in the best interest of society that the next generation (produced overwhelmingly by heterosexual couples) be raised in a stable environment with both parents present and involved.
Now, as a grand ideal, that is hard to achieve. People fail quite a bit at all aspects of it, from the "stable" part to the "present and involved" part, and the trend has only been to make it worse. As I've already cited, divorce is becoming increasingly common, and very weirdly, when we noticed the discrepancy that men were spending all their time at work, and women were spending all their time at home, and that felt unfair to a lot of people, our solution was to remove women from the home, too, rather than to put men back in it. So now, more often than not, neither parent has time to care for the kids, and we're spiraling into continually worsening social ills.
(Now, don't go off all half-cocked and tell me that I think equal rights for women is a bad thing for society. I don't. I think that judging a person's worth by their success in their career, rather than by their success in the home, regardless of their gender, is a bad thing for society. I think that telling a woman that she must be a CEO to be counted a success is as bad as telling that to a man, and I think it does harm to both. It's far more important to be a good father, mother, uncle, aunt, son, daughter, or friend.)
So, a lot can go wrong with marriage, and already has. Right now, I don't think that the social pressures surrounding marriage have the power anymore to establish and maintain stable environments for child-rearing. Within some throwback communities (like my own culture), it still functions, but in the larger society, it is defunct.
So, again, perhaps gay marriage isn't a revolution as much as it is a symptom of the fact that marriage no longer holds any meaning for the American people. But if that is true, then I'm wondering if something can be done to return the true benefits of marriage (not just the tax and legal advantages) to the mating household, without making homosexuals feel violated all over again. Some states are creating forms of marriage that are much harder to dissolve ... and perhaps that, or something like it, will be the answer.
But we need a solution to this problem, badly. Far more than we need a solution to the gay-marriage issue. The issue of establishing and maintaining stable child-rearing environments for mating pairs is vital to the next generation of Americans — ALL of them, both gay and straight. Gay marriage, while it may make some homosexuals feel better about themselves, is not that solution. I'd like to know what is.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ela's right about the issue of abortion versus contraceptives and women's equality, as I recall it.
The problem arises, I suppose, when you have women using abortion as a method of contraception (or in place of it, I suppose would be more correct). Then, you do have to at least consider that if it wasn't there, it would not be possible to remove the unwanted burden of childbirth/rearing.
So, there is a freedom (and not just one, btw) associated with being able to stop the life growing inside one's body and that is an aspect of the abortion issue that should not be ignored. It's where the "it's my body" argument comes to play most.
Lots of facets on that one and we might as well talk about it because I've already set National policy on the gay marriage thing, so this thread will run out of steam pretty quickly without being able to move on to abortion...
quote:For example, the continuation of our species depends on stable heterosexual relationships producing healthy children. I didn't make that up, nor did I arbitrarily invent it to persecute someone. It is the major reason why heterosexual marriage has been protected by law for ages, and I've really yet to see any similar compelling reason brought up to support the protection of homosexual marriage.
Even ignoring that there's significant debate as to the origins of marriage, with theories being proposed ranging from it being a method of solidifying control over lines of descent, to it arising to co-opt a female power structure in early tribes, to it resulting from natural dynamics in any evenly split population, to many others, there're still huge problems with this line of reasoning.
One: there are numerous species which raise children in different ways yet survive.
Two: there are several human cultures which raise children in different ways (ie communally) and survive.
Three: the presence of stable homosexual relations does not result in the fewer presence of stable heterosexual relations, so it is not compromising this "goal" any, however the presence of stable homosexual relationships does help society out both by being a stabilizing force for that segment of the population AND by helping raise children (for instance through adoption), which as I have already pointed out every single sociological study so far has found hom couples can do just as well as het couples.
Four: the human race is not about reproduction, particularly today. In the past it was an exceedingly sufficient reason to get a divorce if one's spouse could not produce children (particularly if one was the male). While society allows such divorces for other reasons, nowadays the value of the relationship is no longer considered to lie in ability to make babies.
Five: There are lots of things that have been exceedingly long traditions, such as slavery. That this reasoning behind marriage has a long history doesn't make it a good reasoning (even if it is true, which is doubtful imo out of the theories that have been advanced).
Six: Humans would be evolutionarily more successful if we were more like cockroaches. This does not mean we should be more like cockroaches. Evolutionary success carries no automatic moral imperative. You might argue that survival of the species does, but we are in no danger of dying out as a species even if we completely dissolve civil heterosexual marriage. In fact, I'd bet society would change remarkably little, except everyone would have many fewer rights wrt their loved ones.
Seven: that's just it, this is about rights. Not even really the right to marry, but the right to live with whom you love (immigration rights), to provide for your loved one with your benefits (social security, veteran's benefits, et cetera), to mourn for your loved one's death (guaranteed bereavement leave), to ensure your loved one's wishes are carried out in death as in life (burial/cremation), to receive what your loved one says in confidence without being forced to confess it in court (marital privilege).
Eight: The major reason heterosexual marriage has been protected by law for so long is religion. When religion is the organization that does the marrying and also has huge influence throughout civil government, what it wants protected gets protected. Heck, until relatively recently nobody knew what evolution was, and certainly weren't basing their decisions off of it. They were basing their decisions off of ideas about morals and religious worthiness, for the most part -- and considering that Christianity is a strong advocate of marriage, marriage was enforced.
If homosexual couples were given the same adoption rights as heterosexual couples there would be plenty of joint children. Are you seriously suggesting that the marriages of people who don't or can't have children biologically are inherently less stable and worthwhile than those of they who can and do? That adopted and step children are less meaningful than those genetically related to both parents? I'm suprised at you.
Also, Geoff, I rather suspect you'd find well under 10% of heterosexual relationships last until death. After all, not much over two thirds of marriages do, and by a huge degree most heterosexual relationships are not marriages, but dating.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is that the reason we legalized abortion? Silly me. I thought it was to prevent any more women from dying in botched backroom abortions or self-induced abortions. At least, that's what was talked about back when abortion was first legalized.
I don't recall anyone ever suggesting using abortion as "a means to remove the responsibility of childbirth as a factor that held women back from absolute equality with men." That's what contraceptive methods are for, and they began to be widely discussed, with the goal of educating women about them, during that time period.
Is that the case? I wouldn't know, I wasn't conscious then. But it seems to me to be a really bad reason. I mean, would you legalize something that you thought to be morally wrong, just because people were willingly endangering themselves to do it?
I assumed that those who made the decision did so because they believed that allowing abortions served some directly good purpose in the quest for gender equality, not just because some desperate women were standing behind them with coathangers, holding themselves hostage.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:22 percent of gay/bisexual couples are raising children as compared to 23 percent of married/heterosexual couples. Nearly the same amount of children have married, heterosexual parents as do the children who have partners are parents. (Gomes, 2003). Those 22 percent of children of these same-sex couples are in families where they are born “out of wedlock” another social depravity used as a mark for an immoral society. (Gomes, 2003). Were there legal civil marriages for same-sex couples, those 22 percent of children would be from unbroken homes.
quote:So, again, perhaps gay marriage isn't a revolution as much as it is a symptom of the fact that marriage no longer holds any meaning for the American people. But if that is true, then I'm wondering if something can be done to return the true benefits of marriage (not just the tax and legal advantages) to the mating household, without making homosexuals feel violated all over again. Some states are creating forms of marriage that are much harder to dissolve ... and perhaps that, or something like it, will be the answer.
But we need a solution to this problem, badly. Far more than we need a solution to the gay-marriage issue. The issue of establishing and maintaining stable child-rearing environments for mating pairs is vital to the next generation of Americans — ALL of them, both gay and straight. Gay marriage, while it may make some homosexuals feel better about themselves, is not that solution. I'd like to know what is.
Geoff, I submit that if the state is involved in this from any stanpoint other than to get the heck OUT of the way, the inevitable result will be government control of reproduction or government control of child-rearing.
See, there's a lot that non-government entities can do to help build stronger relationships for those who wish to have children and raise them. But the bottom line if government gets involved is going to be a question of "fitness" to do so. And those who are judged unfit to be parents will have to either be sterilized, segregated from the opposite sex, or have their inevitable offspring taken from them.
Long term, I don't see many alternatives.
In the meantime, I'd suggest not worrying so much about defending marriage. This is a fairness issue for some important economic benefits that accrue to married couples but not others. And it should be dealt with separately -- see my preceding post on this page -- the longish one.
Whatever happens to "marriage" in the US, we have a very simple and easy-to-solve problem related to non-heterosexual relationships. We need to get government out of the way and allow people the freedom to choose who they spend time with and stop penalizing those who don't fit within the norm.
If everyone just took a step back and said "you know, that part of it isn't fair...let's fix that" this problem would be over in an instant. And it'd be the best thing America could do.
Now the rest of your concerns...about marriage, etc. Those are much thornier thickets to hack our way through. Let's take those up separately from the fairness issue that is before us right now.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assumed that those who made the decision did so because they believed that allowing abortions served some directly good purpose in the quest for gender equality, not just because some desperate women were standing behind them with coathangers, holding themselves hostage.
Actually, maybe someone can correct us all on this. I believe the majority opinion in Roe v Wade made the case in favor of abortion access as a right to privacy issue. In particular, if I recall correctly, the court was basically telling the government to get the heck out of what was a private medical decision.
quote: Is that the case? I wouldn't know, I wasn't conscious then. But it seems to me to be a really bad reason. I mean, would you legalize something that you thought to be morally wrong, just because people were willingly endangering themselves to do it?
Yes, Yes, YES!!!
If a law hurts many, and helps few, it is a bad law. No matter how "moral" it may have been in the crafting process.
Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, I doubt it would even reduce the amount of them by half. What it would do is make the only available procedure much less safe, and lead to the deaths of countless women. So is making abortion illegal really a "moral" thing to do? Just because it sounds good on paper?
(Wow, an abortion/homosexuality thread. This could go 20+ pages )
Edit: And I believe you are correct Bob, and that remains my primary reason for being pro-choice
posted
fugu, I only really have a few points to address your several:
1. If you can imagine an implement a vastly new social order which benefits the next generation as well as stably-married parents do, then I invite you to do it. I think, however, that we will be much more successful trying to implement one with which the American people are already familiar.
2. To survive is not the same as to thrive. Sure, we're not as worried about species survival these days. But we are intensely worried about the success and relative happiness and health of the American people, and I believe that we should pattern our society in a manner that contributes to our ability to thrive.
3. In reference to the evolution of marriage, the reason that a social institution was originally put in place is often very different from the reason it fails or succeeds. Marriage didn't have to be created specifically for the purposes I cited, but that doesn't mean it doesn't WORK that way. I think there is a reason why the vast majority of successful, thriving societies are built from monogamous marriages.
4. As to your assertion that the main reason for continued marriage is the influence of religion ... why do you think that marriage is so important to those religions?
5. I have no problem with gay couples receiving the various rights that married couples have, or with married couples losing them in the interest of fairness. If that's all it's about, then I say go for it.
And a final note (which also addresses Bob's point that government should stay out of the way) maybe the best solution is to completely remove state-sanctioned marriage from the books, and let it be a solely religious arrangement. In a hundred years, we'll see whose descendants come out the healthiest
I think I'm just kidding, though ... I think that society needs marriage more than it realizes. As we have made ourselves increasingly childish, we have lost the sense of responsibility that leads people to take such social strictures seriously as applying to THEM. It's something we need to relearn, and I'm more than a little afraid of what it might take to teach us.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assumed that those who made the decision did so because they believed that allowing abortions served some directly good purpose in the quest for gender equality, not just because some desperate women were standing behind them with coathangers, holding themselves hostage.
I'm sorry, Geoff, but your assumption is just plain wrong. I thought that was what I said before, and I am saying it again.
quote:Face it, Toretha, noone who uses the 'god doesn't like homosexuality' opinion is going to change their mind. And they're the ones who are in the majority.
So we have those who genuinely believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and those who use it to cover their bigotry or fear or ignorance.
I like your quote.
I also liked mackillian's essay, speaking as an old English teacher.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, I doubt it would even reduce the amount of them by half. What it would do is make the only available procedure much less safe, and lead to the deaths of countless women. So is making abortion illegal really a "moral" thing to do? Just because it sounds good on paper?
Exactly, Xavier. Thank you for bringing up that point.
posted
Well, it does seem that Geoff is okay with legalizing something like marriage... Kinda like the earlier compromise we had going... call all of them by the government civil unions (including straight people), or call all of them civil marriages. same name, same legal bounds. Let the religious folk do their ceremonies and make religious marriages for whom they wish.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:"1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
"(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
"(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
"(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
"2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.
"In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.
"This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.
posted
I'm actually in favor in principle of Geoff's second option, doing away with state sanctioned marriages completely.
Marriage as it stands now is *not* a requirement for children, much as some would like it to be. The government could give tax-credits for child dependents, but not for adult dependents (as is possible in a marriage). If two adults filing taxes, are both responsible for the child, they can each claim a half deduction, or one can claim all of it. It works that way with owning a house together married or not.
Of course this would totally mess up social security and adult dependent benefits and everything else like that and tick off lots of taxpayers that vote so it isn't going to happen. Though social security is already so messed up I don't know if it would make much of a difference.
posted
mackillian, maybe some errors but not bad grammar. I always told my students that there was a big difference to me.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Making abortion illegal will not stop abortions, I doubt it would even reduce the amount of them by half.
Considering legalizing increased them at least ten-fold, what's your basis for this?
quote:What it would do is make the only available procedure much less safe, and lead to the deaths of countless women.
Really. Countless, you say? If banning abortion did cut it by half, that would be about 800k in the U.S. each year. What percentage of these women would die? According to this, a pro-choice group, the death rate is 700 per 100,000 illegal abortions, including in lesser developed countries. So if it cut the number of abortions in half, there would be 5600 deaths caused by this a year. Tragic? Yes. A law that stops 5600 deaths a year is normally a good one.
quote:So is making abortion illegal really a "moral" thing to do? Just because it sounds good on paper?
However, this argument is only conclusive if the the "does abortion take a human life?" question is already settled. Clearly, no one would support 1.6 million deaths to save 5600. So while a question to be answered with compassion, it is not the dispositive question in the debate. And I doubt any pro-lifer holds that position because it "sounds good on paper."
At least pretend to understand the other side's argument before dismissing it cavalierly.
quote:And a final note (which also addresses Bob's point that government should stay out of the way) maybe the best solution is to completely remove state-sanctioned marriage from the books, and let it be a solely religious arrangement.
I think there's a great argument in favor of this position, Geoff. And basically, what it would mean is that we remove all government-sanctioned benefits of being married as well -- or rather first and foremost. In essence, we give those benefits based on private civil relationships established by legal means. For example, if a child wants to ensure that his/her parents (for whom he/she provides sole suppport) are cared for in case of death of their primary caregiver, that person would have the legal right to name them on his/her insurance policy.
Got a friend you want to provide for? Same deal.
You want to make sure that if you are unconscious in the hospital they let your spouse visit you, then you should have that fact filed with the state/county in which you reside.
All kinds of great things would come from government basically staying out of marriage altogether.
EDIT -- I was writing while AJ posted that similar and excellent answer.
quote: In a hundred years, we'll see whose descendants come out the healthiest
This part of your post doesn't link well with the above.
For example, not every person who is married today would be married if they had to do it via a religious ceremony as you are proposing. Yet I'm fairly certain you would not be so bold as to assert that irreligious people aren't likely to raise healthy offspring.
So...I'm not sure what you're trying to really get at here. A challenge to the non-religious people to see how well they can raise kids without God? or A challenge to religions to ensure that marriage and child-rearing have greater meaning for those who belong to their particular faith.
posted
Geoffrey -- simply put, allowing or not allowing homosexual marriage (or an exact facsimile thereof) can only have a positive effect on the ability of the human population to survive and thrive. Those people who would participate have already almost entirely separated themselves from the possibility of heterosexual marriage (some bisexual people excluded), so its hardly going to harm the ability of heterosexual people to provide stable environments for children, and having it does increase the overall stable number of environments for children (such as adoptees, or children by artificial insemination in the case of lesbians sometimes).
Personally, I do think government should get out of the marriage business. Legally recognized pair relationships should be called civil unions or similar as far as the law is concerned. And everyone can get married or whatever as they and the wishes of their church are concerned.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm, it's not that I have no choice. It's just that God is perfect. If he said it, it's true. Good enough for me. But again, just because I don't agree with homosexuality does not mean I've made up my mind on the marriage part. After all, religion and government and somewhat seperate. The question is where do you draw the line? Which morals are good for everyone and which are only good within the church? It's a delicate question.
Again, I would like to see more studies done on the nature of homosexuality. If female homosexuality can be influenced by fads, as I have seen reported, is it healthy for girls to grow up in a culture where homosexuality is regarded as normal? As more girls experiment because everyone else is doing it, it stands to reason it will become so influential homosexuality will be not just accepted but expected. Are we willing to go that far? It should at least be considered.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how you can equate most of the pro gay marriage people who have chosen to believe gay marriage is o.k.
You need to be careful how you categorize people - I am in favor of allowing civil homosexual marriage. However, I still think homosexual actions are sinful, so in that respect I guess you could say I don't think "gay marriage is o.k." It's just I don't think the "wrongness" rises to the level of requiring outlawing it (or denying the civil benefits to couples).
quote:Storm, it's not that I have no choice. It's just that God is perfect. If he said it, it's true. Good enough for me
Men wrote the Bible, or at least had a hand in it. None of us really sure WHAT God said. We believe certain things are true and come from God because of our faith.
Bottom line, I'm not able to, in good conscience, deny someone a shot at the same rights and priveleges I have because of Scripture -- the one I believe in or anyone elses.
It sounds as if you are at least open to the possibility of gay marriage or civil union and that's a good thing. To me, it means that your faith (including faith that homosexuality is a sin) hasn't caused you to deny other Americans equal rights.
To all out there who hold this position, I honor you. I, like many others, see the Religious Wrong battling this issue and raising it to the level of a Constitutional Amendment for purposes completely out of whack with the ideals we have all agreed to live under as Americans.
...
Now...about girls and fads...or kids and fads, whatever. I've seen these concerns come up with every generation I've been alive to observe. And you know what? Fads are short-lived. If someone is truly homosexual, they'll be homosexual. If someone is heterosexual, they'll be heterosexual. Frankly, I think if we pass laws affecting the happiness of contributing adults in America based on the fears of influencs on children, we are doing the adults major harm based on a fear, not a truth.
And the call to "study" things has, in many instances, been a smokescreen meaning "SLOW THINGS DOWN 'CUZ I'M NOT READY FOR IT." I'm not accusing anyone here of this attitude, but frankly, if you were in the position of a loving gay couple in America, would you want to wait until everyone was "comfortable?" Or until everyone had time to study the effects of your relationship on possible future children?
Nope.
I say, if there are societal influences that you don't care for and you worry about them affecting your children, find something else for your children to do. I know, at some point you have to explain "why's that man kissing that other man mommy?" to the kiddies, but that's not the same as having your children learn that you think being a homosexual is "OKAY" or that society has finally decided not to get so darn worked about it. You get to tell them whatever you want. Heck most kids would go "yuck" anyway when they see ANYONE kissing. The ones that don't (regardless of who is doing the kissing) should be under fairly tight parental supervision anyway (assuming they'll still listen to parents at that point).
I'm not advocating a homosexual lifestyle for your children, by the way. I'm just saying that worrying about the effect on future children as opposed the unfairness towards ACTUAL PEOPLE, is wrong. It's wrong for Americans to think that way.
It may be right for religious folk, or ethicists, or incipient parents to think that way. But it isn't America.
Or rather, it sadly IS America's history on these types of issues. We always have to make progress at the expense of people who want to slow things down "for the children."
I'd rather not run roughshod over such concerns. But they are and should be secondary. Do we tolerate unfairness because some as yet unborn child might have to learn a deeper message than "X is wrong?"
Heck, we don't seem to have a big problem with explaining that alcohol is a drug, but it's a LEGAL drug. Or Ken Lay is a bad man who ruined the lives of thousands of people, but we're executing a slow-witted teenager for a crime everyone says was just a horrible mistake.
All I'm saying, for the umpteenth time, is that there are bigger things to worry about. And if we're going to spend money studying things, let's begin with studying what happens to victims of child abuse to maybe stop the cycle there. Or let's spend it on figuring out what we can do to ensure that our educational system is the best in the world -- I mean, shouldn't the world's strongest economy be able to afford te best in education?
Oh well, I feel I've come off as overly critical here. But I'm not trying to be. It's just that I get impatient with the idea that things that can and should be fixed now can just wait. We know it's not right. Let's fix it. And more importantly, let's tell our legislators to fix it.
I mean, all here realize, don't you, that a Constitutional Amendment is about to be drafted that will extend this wrong into the future and make it HARDER to fix the problem? Surely people see that our leaders are about to go in the WRONG direction unless we let them know we want something else. Something better? Something fair?
[soapbox] The time to act on this is NOW folks. Not when there are studies or when everyone is comfortable.
So please, do the right thing. Find out who your Senators and Congressmen are and write to them to express your opposition to a Constititutional Amendment. Tell them that fairness is more important than fear.
Even if you hate the idea of homosexuality with every fiber of your being, you know the right thing to do in this case. Stop them from even drafting this amendment.
posted
wow, this is turning into a debate like format.
So....
I would like to thank everyone for being here today, and to jump straight into the flow
In response to Geoffs first point, I would like to point out that people aren't trying to put new structures of society in place-but rather to allow the current structures to apply to everyone.
to your second point, you have yet to show how allowing homosexuals to marry would hurt the ability of the American people to thrive
to your third point, homosexual relationships are usually monogamous, so why should we ban those?
And finally, in response to your last and unnumbered point, about how society needs to respect marraige more, wouldn't it make sense to think that couples who want marraige so much they're willing to put up with all sorts of crap and fight to get it would go a long way toward restoring the value of marraige?
Thank you all again, and I urge you to vote for the affirmative side
posted
Before I begin responses, I'd like to point out to everyone who doesn't know that the Washington Times is owned by the same people that own Fox News.
You're going to need a dump truck of salt.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not to say marriage isn't in a pitiful state just because of heterosexuals - it is. But, legalizing homosexual unions is certainly not going to do anything toward improving the state of marriage, not if these stats are even close to being true. As well as information later in the same article, that civil-union homosexual couples in VT have a much lower rate of monogamy that their married, heterosexual counterparts. So, even in a state where they are afforded the legitimacy of civil union, their relationship are not as stable as that of heterosexuals.
This is not about protecting or improving marriage in America. It's about fairness to a group of contributing citizens.
As soon as the government decides that there will be civil penalties for failed marriages lasting less than the average, these statistics will matter. Until then, it doesn't matter if gay marriages last only slightly longer than Britney's latest publicity stunt, um, er., nuptuals.
I realize you were responding to someone else's post about gay monogamy, but it's irrelevant no matter what.
What this issue is ENTIRELY about is:
1) loving couples wanting some form of sanction that is currently denied them.
2) Rights of inheritance and medical coverage.
3) Both responsible adults being listed on a child's birth certificate or, more importantly, on official documents giving them simple basic rights to guide their own child's upbringing. Or heck, even allowing them to adopt each other's children to make the child/parent 0relationship legal for various civil purposes like enrollment, healthcare, picking the kid up from little league, etc.
It's mostly cutting through the bureaucratic BS that married people don't have to go through, but committed gay couples do.
Sure, it'd be nice if theere were "acceptance" along with it, but basically at this point, I think most gay couples would be satisfied with grudging acknowledgement and the same rights as other people.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Bob_Scopatz![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
