posted
Belle, if those stats are true, whey do you think the 'infidelity' is that high? Nature or nurture? If nurture, it can be overcome and is non-relevant?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle -- Regardless of whether or not those statistics are true, I certainly fail to see marriage/civil unions adding to any promiscuity by homosexuality, and in fact consider it likely to detract from promiscuity. Seems like that would be a good result, from an areligious viewpoint and also from a religious viewpoint.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, the problem is you expect us to only listen to you. If you come in and post a comment, expect people to comment on it just as you were commenting on someone else.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, quit overreacting. I haven't dismissed the report, only earmarked it as from a notoriously unreliable source.
By the way, if it were from a reputable source like the Washington Post, I'd be less suspicious. But it's from the Washington Times, which is nothing like the Post -- rather like comparing the Star with the New York Times.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
what I would like to know is how long, on average heterosexual couples stay together including dating couples. Then we could have a good basis of comparison with Belle's statistics, since those statistics will obviously be including all dating gay men.
And Belle, if you don't want to participate in the thread, don't post, since everyone knows that if you post, you're going to get responses-as you SHOULD in a thread, since people will want more information. If they didn't respond, they wouldn't really be showing your post any sort of respect.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Just wanted to point out that support for the amendment issue is almost exactly evenly split. Slightly more oppose gay marriage. Thought I'd mention this in case certain sources started talking about what 'real' Americans believed.
Since you're painting a newspaper with a rather broad brush, you might want to check your facts.
Fox News is owned by Murdoch’s News Corp. The Washington Times is owned by Rev. Sun Myung Moon's News World Communications.
Now, I haven't found anything that said one bought the other since 2000 (the latest I could confirm that they were still separate entities), I think I would have found something considering how many liberal blogs complaining about one or the other (or both) without documenting common ownership.
posted
Wow, I hadn't known it was owned by Moon. There are very few people out there who scare me. Moon is one of them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: 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?
How would this set aside this type of sexuality from any other sort of sexuality? (That is, why is this relevant?)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an Evangelical Christian let me try and explain it from our point of view. Admittidly the primary opposition to the homosexual marriage movement comes from evangelical Christians. The reason is not that we want to limit the civil rights of homosexuals, nor is it that we want to hunt them down and root them out of existence. To an evangelical Christian marriage is a symbol of God and his people. It is a divine blessing.
The Church want's to preservet that sanctity. It is not an attack on homosexual rights.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So don't have gay marriages in your church.
I don't see how that means the government shouldn't recognize them, since a civil union type ceremony isn't the same as a wedding in a church with a minister.
posted
Ryan, its one thing what you believe as a matter of religion. However, when you let that religion dictate what should be allowed and what should not LEGALLY you are attacking the rights of all people who disagree with that religious teaching, because you have no reason other than your religion to believe it is wrong.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
As an Evangelical Christian let me try and explain it from our point of view. Admittidly the primary opposition to the homosexual marriage movement comes from evangelical Christians. The reason is not that we want to limit the civil rights of homosexuals, nor is it that we want to hunt them down and root them out of existence. To an evangelical Christian marriage is a symbol of God and his people. It is a divine blessing.
The Church want's to preservet that sanctity. It is not an attack on homosexual rights.
Again I'll ask. Is the marriage of 2 Atheists keeping within the religious sanctity? Or 2 Agnostics? Or are they null and void? If thats the case, you better tell the government that those marriages aren't legal and those folks shouldn't be enjoying the same civil marriage rights as the "Christians". And was it morally right to outlaw Biracial marriages? Did that keep the 'sanctity' of marriage intact?
We are talking about the SECULAR definition of marriage. Plain and simple.
Is this in keeping with the 'sanctity' of marriage?
quote:Vegas 2 Wed If you are getting married in the near future and want a fun and exciting wedding day, why not consider Las Vegas, NV.
Las Vegas is "The Marriage Capital of the World", and it's become that for good reasons. The professional wedding vendors that are found here are of the highest quality. Considering what you get for the money, Las Vegas offers a better value than anywhere else in the U.S.A., or even the World!
With over 200 wedding chapels located through out the Las Vegas, you can have your choice of wedding services ranging from the traditional wedding to the most wild and crazy Drive-through chapels. Elvis himself has been known to make an appearance as the best man or the minister at some weddings.
Approximately 100,000 marriage licenses are issued annually in Las Vegas. Valentine's Day and New Year's Day are the most popular days to be married here.
Please take our invitation to celebrate your wedding day in Las Vegas and start making your plans today!
In order to have a legal marriage, a ceremony must be performed in the State of Nevada within one year from date of issuance of the marriage license by any person licensed or authorized to perform ceremonies in Nevada. The ceremony may be performed in any Wedding Chapel, Church or the Civil Marriage Commissioner's Office. These marriages are recognized throughout the world.
Don't tell me THIS is maintaining the 'sanctity' of marriage.
The sanctity arguement doesn't wash. I'm sorry. Now I'm not trying to attack you or your beliefs. But when you argue 'sanctity' and I look around here in Arkansas, as backwoods as it can be and find places like those in Vegas, I gotta wonder.
EDIT: That pesky "N" was missing in Sanctity. I kept missing it heh
quote:The Church want's to preservet that sanctity. It is not an attack on homosexual rights.
Ryan. I don't know what to say. I'm just sad.
I think you could do a great thing within the Evangelical Christian movement, if you all wanted to. That is, you could start writing to your Congressmen saying
quote:as people of faith and as Americans, we believe two things:
1) Marriage should be between a man and a woman, and,
2) Every American should have the same rights as every other American.
Therefore, Mr/Ms _______, the congregation of ________ church urges you to work on a tandem set of bills that should not be made law individually, but only in tandem. The first would make it a law that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. The second -- making civil unions the only form of state-sanctioned bonding -- would make it possible for every person in America to join in a civil arrangement with anyone of their choosing for purposes of automatic inheritance, visitation rights in hospitals, and parental rights. This latter bill would, ideally, replace civil marriage with a legally binding contract between any two people.
In fact, to show how important we believe these rights to be, and how convinced we are of our stance on marriage, we urge you to pass the civil union bill first.
Signed:
members of the congregation of xxxx church.
Put up or shut up.
If you really believe that your church is not interested in denying the rights of homosexuals, send that letter or something like it.
Otherwise, you're just talking out of an unusual orifice.
I dare you to take that letter (or a similar one of your crafting) that would urge your representives to safeguard the rights of homosexuals as a pre-condition of you getting your way on the Marriage laws.
posted
You know, I don't think this whole equality argument works very well.
Everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Furthermore, at the moment, neither heterosexual or homosexual has the right to marry a member of the same sex. This is equal.
The question is not about equal rights - it's about adding a right. Quesion #1 is "Should we all also have the right to marry members of the same sex, as we already all have the right to marry members of the opposite sex."
Then, once we've decided that, Quesion #2 is "Should we call this marriage too?"
But, to say we are denying homosexuals a right is just not accurate. What we are actually doing is giving everyone equal rights, but in the case of heterosexuals that right is much more useful than it is for homosexuals. At the same time, we are denying a right that is of no use to most heterosexuals, but would greatly benefit homosexuals. So, you can see how homosexuals feel shafted by the current allotment of rights.
I don't see any reason not to add the right to marry a member of the same sex to our list of rights. There are some arguments against homosexuality, but homosexuality exists whether or not we add marriage to the mix. Homosexual individuals already live with one another, and act as if they are married. I see no downside to formalizing it.
As for Quesion #2, I don't really care. However, if we are going to call it by a different name, I think we should offer both the same rights along with that name. Unless there's some good reason not to, which I don't think there is, marriage should carry no more special perks that civil unions do not - otherwise, we're just arbitrarily favoring marriages.
But again, to call this a matter of equal rights is to confuse the issue. Everyone already has equal rights to marriage. This is a matter of adding rights to make homosexual individuals happier.
quote:Everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, has the equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex. Furthermore, at the moment, neither heterosexual or homosexual has the right to marry a member of the same sex. This is equal.
Heh, man, I'm refraining from rejoining this thread until I feel up to addressing every post that deserves a response, but I have to comment on this. If laws existed that gave everyone the right to marry white wives, but none of any other race, is that equal? After all, everyone has the opportunity to marry a Southern white woman. Just because you may desire marriage with a black or Latina or Asian woman rather than a white woman doesn't mean there's any special legal privileges going on -- right? Everyone can still marry, just not to the people they love.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I would say that heterosexuals have the right to marry people of the only gender they are naturally (perhaps genetically) attracted to.
Homosexuals don't have that right.
You make it seem like its a choice, when direct testimony from millions of homosexuals strongly suggests that it is NOT something they choose.
Its like it being illegal to write using your left hand. You could claim that this is still equal rights because everyone has the right to use their right hand. Left-handed people would disagree.
Edit: Yeah, what Lalo said. I have to say that of all the lame-ass justifications for not allowing gay marriage, this one has to be one of the ones that makes the least sense.
posted
After that last Bob post I just couldn't shake the image of 25 school kids saying, "OOOooooooooooohhhhh," in delight over the double dog dare based turn of events. You can never look a double dog dare in the eye and turn it aside , unless it involves a streetlight in the Christmas Story.
Seriously, Bob, you've just written some real rippers today, normally I bang my head against my desk in frustration reading these threads, but Bob has really eloquently argued the stand that I and quite a few others around here share, and made it possible to read this sort of thread w/o going completely bonkers w/frustration.
quote:But, to say we are denying homosexuals a right is just not accurate. What we are actually doing is giving everyone equal rights, but in the case of heterosexuals that right is much more useful than it is for homosexuals.
Riiiiiiight: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I have just mailed letters to Sue Myrick, John Edwards and Elizabeth Dole. These are my congresspeople.
This is what I sent
quote: In response to the recent issues of marriage liscenses to homosexual couples in California I urge you to take action. As a member of your district I believe my views are in concert with the general views of my region. I request that you support first any legislation giving homosexuals full rights under the law to civil unions. Everyone should be entitled to inheritance, hospital rights and parental rights. These unions should not be restricted to only homosexuals but to anyone. I ask this because no one should be Justice should be blind to race, gender, and orientation. Second I ask that you protect the sacrement of marriage. Please support any bills or ammendments that define marriage as between one man and one woman. Finally as a caveat, no organization or person should be compelled to preform a marriage or civil union ceremony.
quote:If laws existed that gave everyone the right to marry white wives, but none of any other race, is that equal?
No - that would mean black women couldn't marry at all, while white women could.
Now, if a law existed that said you could only marry someone of the same race, that might be equal. It would be arbitrary and unhelpful to people who want to have interracial marriages, but it would probably be equal.
It's sort of like the right to an abortion. I'm male, so the right to have an abortion doesn't really help me at all. That doesn't mean it's unequally applied, and it doesn't mean I can demand some other similar right to balance it out.
quote:I would say that heterosexuals have the right to marry people of the only gender they are naturally (perhaps genetically) attracted to.
You might say that, but probably only in this particular issue to try and make the equality argument work. I'm pretty sure that's not what the authors of the law, or the voting public, had in mind when they created the law. Otherwise, they would not have specifically disallowed gay marriage in so many states, and would not have made claims like "marriage is between a man and a woman".
quote:I have to say that of all the lame-ass justifications for not allowing gay marriage, this one has to be one of the ones that makes the least sense.
It's not a justification for not allowing gay marriage, because as I said in the same post, I think we should allow it.
However, we should be fair and reasonable about the justifications for it - and the equality argument just doesn't hold much water, for the reasons I gave above. I'm not just going to buy into any argument that gives me the conclusion I want.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
We were talking with some friends last night.
Basically going "so what is going to happen now" with the San Fransisco situation.
We are assuming that someone is going to file suit somewhere. The only way the marriages can be anulled is if a judge overturns them. But you will have to find a judge in CA that is going to overturn this, in a blanket fashion. This is going to be hard to find to begin with, and then it is going to get appealed up to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal courts in the country. They will come down on the side of gay marriage at which point you can see it going to the Supreme Court.
We don't see Supreme Court touching this case with a ten foot pole for quite a while (like probably another 10 years) The only way they would get involved sooner, is if it becomes a giant reciprocity fight between the states. But those reciprocity laws are different types of laws than the "married or not married" issue.
If a constitutional ammendment did go through, they can't make it retroactive. So those gay couples who are already married stay married regardless, creating a bunch of 50something gay couples that are married and a bunch of 20 and 30somethings that aren't.
A constitutional ammendment of this variety, would likely get quashed in the Senate if it made it through the House, since the Senate isn't going to get the majority of votes it needs to pass a constitutional ammendment. If it does get that far, then the states have to ratify it. If enough states don't ratify it (which they probably wouldn't) then, like the women's equal rights ammendment it would die a long slow death due to statues of limitations.
So the odds of any sort of law getting passed at the federal level is extremely slim.
posted
Tresopax, it's not so clear. The initial assumptions of the setup determine the answer every time.
Try piecing out why this is (or isn't) a problem in the following scenario [mind you, I'm not setting this up as an analogy, just as a thought experiment, and I'm interested in seeing where it goes, too]:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right.
Is there something wrong with this conclusion? Where does the wrongness come from, if it isn't there? Is it in the language (semantics), the logic, or both?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, if there is a problem, I'd say it's because you can't have a right to something and yet be prevented from using that right. That's a matter of the meaning of the concept of a right.
However, in the following case, I think there is no problem:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1. The fact that members of Group B don't want to walk away from Building 1 (and instead want to walk away from Building 2) is irrelevant, as they could walk away from Building 1 if they wanted to. They still have the right.
The situation changes when we are talking about a right we don't want to use, rather than a right we can't use - and the former is what's going on in this thread.
posted
I have the right to demonstrate against the Bush administration. However my chice not to excercise that right does not mean I should recieve a new right of equal magnitude.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, seriously, this whole sematic thing is crap.
Racially. If a black person wanted to marry the white person he loved, but the law didn't allow it because it doesn't allow interracial marriage. The constitution states that all are equal. However, somehow one race isn't equal to another because they are negated the freedom to choose to marry whom they love.
And we say what? "Your rights aren't being violated, you just aren't choosing to exercise your right in the proper manner."
That doesn't make sense. The right is a civil marriage of one person to another whom they love. They cannot fully exercise that right when the choices are restricted--saying that one love is not equal to another.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The right is a civil marriage of one person to another whom they love.
I'm in favor of allowing civil unions. But you're using semantics as much as Tresopax is by defining the right in such a way as to presuppose your desired end.
People have the right to "marry." The traditional understanding of the word "marry" has been the joining of a man and a woman into a special relationship. You're establishing the right by redefining the word, which is a semantic argument.
Doesn't make the argument any less compelling. But it's still semantic.
I think the issue is much better categorized as a "fairness" issue in moral terms, and an "equal protection" issue (rather than equality issue) in legal terms.
It's also important to note the issues underlying semantic issues. Adovcates for homosexual marriage deny they are redefining the institution of marriage, a conclusion contrary to the every-day understanding of the term of most Americans. When trying to change wide-held beliefs, it is important to state why the new belief is in accord with more fundamental beliefs held by the people being convinced.
In this case, the argument is starting out with a perceived lie. "We're not trying to change marriage" seems like a lie when compared to the implicit understanding of "husband/wife" at the root of most people's conception of marriage.
That's why I come to this issue by making clear distinctions between the civil benefits of legally sanctioned relationships between two adults and the actual institution of marriage. In many ways this is also a semantic argument, but it nicely reconciles all my fundamental beliefs of equal protection and the sanctity of marriage.
posted
Hey, Tres, no fair mixing in new hypotheticals! I promise to play with yours later, if you play with mine now.
quote:Well, if there is a problem, I'd say it's because you can't have a right to something and yet be prevented from using that right. That's a matter of the meaning of the concept of a right.
So, the problem with my hypothetical as first stated is that the members of Group B cannot be said to have that right, because they cannot exercise it, correct?
And so one could modify the hypothetical as follows:
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't shackled to the floor. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right to walk away if they weren't shackled.
This could be the start of a beautiful friendship. That was about the best letter I've ever read.
Now, take it to your church. When you hear people saying "I don't want to hurt gays, just protect marriage..." give them a copy of your letter and ask them to send it to their representatives too.
I'm so impressed.
Hey, Dagonee, have you written your letter yet? We need more!
Belle? Could you add your letter to the mix? Would your church sign on to something like this?
And how about the rest of the people here who are just angry and frustrated. Let's DO something before Congress goes off and remakes this issue into something we don't want.
Imagine if just 50 people a day wrote to their House and Senate representative just to say: Don't do one without the other. Make it fair to everyone.
Just imagine.
Tell a friend.
Heck, tell an enemy.
Wouldn't it be great if for once someone got rights in America without having to stage a bunch of protests? Can't we just recognize the problem and fix it?
I say it's time for America to grow up. And this is a great opportunity to show how we've gotten past our divisiveness over every issue.
If we can do this one, I bet you would could solve a lot of other issues too.
quote:Members of Group A and Group B both have the right to walk away from Building 1 as long as they aren't shackled to the floor. The fact that members of Group B are each shackled to the floor of Building 1 is irrelevant, as they could walk away if this weren't the case. They still have the right to walk away if they weren't shackled.
Any problems?
No, that one seems fine. That one is a bizarre sort of right to have though.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wrote last year to my state representatives.
When I write to my Congressman and Senators, the letter will be largely states' rights plus asking them not to add to the legacy of shame contained in the "importation of people" and "three-fifths of a person" clauses of the Constitution by adopting the first rights-limiting amendment since prohibition.
posted
Dagonee, sounds good to me. That's a far more eloquent and informed version of what I wrote to TX Senator Cornyn -- the one who's been tapped to write the bill.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I could care less if gays marry, but I was wondering, if gays can marry what will keep polygamy from being legal.
Posts: 2489 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see the legal connection beyond "extending a right, why not extend it further?"
I also don't see the problem with polygamy. I see a problem with divying up legal rights, but if a nice lawyer writes up a very thorough legal script defining the rights of adults in a multiple-partner civil union, then good. Lets assume those rights are relatively equal in monetary value and useful value. Then great. Polygamy should be legal.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, that one seems fine. That one is a bizarre sort of right to have though.
Agreed, as it isn't the sort of right which is meaningful. But one could still properly say, "I don't see why people say this is discrimination, since this right [i.e., to walk away if not shackled] is applied to everyone equally." Correct?
quote:When I write to my Congressman and Senators, the letter will be largely states' rights plus asking them not to add to the legacy of shame contained in the "importation of people" and "three-fifths of a person" clauses of the Constitution by adopting the first rights-limiting amendment since prohibition.
quote: I see a problem with divying up legal rights, but if a nice lawyer writes up a very thorough legal script defining the rights of adults in a multiple-partner civil union, then good.
I see huge problems with this - more than half the legal use of marriage is the convenience factor. Who consents to medical care if I can't? My spouse.
If "spouse" were "spouses," then it would have to be "the spouse I've designated to do so." Which means I'd have to designate someone, which means marriage provided no legal convenience in this scenario. This can be repeated with most questions in which "my spouse" would be the default legal answer.
Interesting historical fact: Did you know bigamy was one of the only strict-liability crimes punishable by death under English common law? No excuse could save you, although an excuse might get you a pardon.
posted
Dagonee: I think it's really hard, or really unlikely to draw up a suitable legal formula for polygamy. But I don't think it's impossible.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also don't see how allowing civil unions for homosexual couples automatically leads to polygamy.
Like I said...just don't have them in your church, then. There you go. Your religion isn't involved; it's only the government. Hooray.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
