posted
and Greenland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden... (though I don't know the exact wording of those laws)
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not going to rehash the whole counter-majoritatian debate with you. Regardless of what you think of the issue, the fact that it was decided by a court makes it generate more controversy than if it was decided by the legislature.
Does that mean the courts shouldn't be able to overturn laws? No. But it does mean that one side of the debate is going to feel disenfranchised after.
And in this case, circumvented is exactly the right word. It is very likely that the Mass. Constitution will be amended in 2 years (which is legally as fast as it can be amended) specifically to overturn this decision.
Let's be real clear about this: UNJUST DOES NOT EQUAL UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Marriage is an institution of the rich upper classes for the purpose of protecting property rights. Nine times out of 10 historically the poor had none of the legal advantages of marriage that are offered today.
posted
Self-declared communal marriages in the 60's. Not officially sanctioned, but I still count them as an experiment in social engineering.
Can we say that we disagree and stop there? I can answer every argument you have with an equally compelling response, and neither of us will ever convince the other. All we'll do is continue yet another multi-page gay marriage thread. If you stand on tradition I'll start listing all the other grand traditions we've cherished over the millenia that have been dropped after we came to our senses. If you argue about the harm to straight marriage I'll argue for legal gay marriage and a tightening of divorce laws as a better alternative. Pleas of immorality and sin are useless since I'm irreligious and I've been arguing for more responsibility, more commitment, more social structure with every post I make. I understand your concerns, but I can't accept them, while it appears that you can never accept mine.
Couldn't we just link to the last time and go talk about Troy some more? Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still, man and woman. It's not as much what it IS as what it is NOT. You have circles of different sizes, colors, and textures, but never before did they have four corners. Why should I believe it's a circle?
Chris, you are misunderstanding me. I'm not going to argue against letting homosexuals have a legal contract or a union or whatever, because I honestly don't care if they want to do that. It has nothing to do with me. I just feel sad that they want to take a term that is special to me and make it into a blanket that covers everyone, everything, and eventually will cover unions with children who "really love each other and want a lifelong commitment" and a man and his dog. Based on everything you guys have used to describe gay marriages, you have yet to exclude a relationship between a man and his dog, or a man and a twelve-year-old girl that's in love with him. I'm saying that love and a life-long commitment does not a marriage make. Lots of people have them or want them and are not getting married.
posted
Why should I believe that a black man in America should be able to read or write? They couldn't for the first hundred years or so. In fact, why should I believe that a conquering race shouldn't have the right to enslave its foes? There's a tradition that's been around a while. Why should I believe that women should be allowed to vote, hold property, make their own decisions, or in any way be considered equal to men? That's been around even longer. Why should I believe that children shouldn't marry at 13 or younger? That's a fairly recent change. What's this new-fangled "adolescent" stuff?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
There's a debate going on. 4 people decide the debate is irrelevant and declare a winner. That's circumvented.
I'm not arguing about whether the decision was right or should have been decided that way (two different things, by the way). I'm arguing that dismissing the well-intentioned people on the other side of an argument is not going to build consensus, especially when the possibility of consensus has already been damaged by a countermajoritarian decision.
posted
PSI, you ignored my example of a case in which marriage is between two people, not defined by gender.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
My belief in the benefits of gay marriage is based on my conviction that it will ultimately strengthen society. It is not so people can do whatever they want, or marry their dogs or underage kids or their Buick, for that matter. There are plenty of arguments against those situations, but I've yet to hear compelling ones against gay marriage that don't boil down to "we've always done it this way, and most people won't like it."
But you're right. Let's really strengthen marriage. No gays. No more divorces either, no matter what the reason. Abusive husband? Tough, stick it out, it's traditional. Marriages are for men and women only, one each, that's it. Oh, and only if they can have kids. Infertile or impotent people can't get married, sorry. Adultery should be punishable by stoning. People should get married as soon as they are physically capable of breeding, anyway. Women get one period as a single person, that's it, and then they get married off quick. Single parenthood is forbidden, and mates will be assigned to you if you need one.
Wow, it's easy to do the slippery slope thing, isn't it?
[ May 17, 2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There's a debate going on. 4 people decide the debate is irrelevant and declare a winner. That's circumvented."
No its not. The debate had been going on for ten yeas, and failed to do anything. The court said "the status quo is violating rights, and is unconstitutional." The debate is STILL going on, but the framework for which the debate needs to be carried out in has been clarified, and those whose rights were violated by the status quo have had a remedy applied.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris: Thanks for ignoring what I said about "what is isn't" rather than "what it is".
Suneun: I'm sorry. Not purposeful. Aren't those examples of countries that have only recently started allowing gay marriages? (I don't include common law, sorry. According to common law, I'm married to my mom.)
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The same thing is happening in Cailfornia. Gay marriage is now legal. Talk about the world going upside down...
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said "I just feel sad that they want to take a term that is special to me and make it into a blanket that covers everyone, everything, and eventually will cover unions with children who "really love each other and want a lifelong commitment" and a man and his dog. Based on everything you guys have used to describe gay marriages, you have yet to exclude a relationship between a man and his dog, or a man and a twelve-year-old girl that's in love with him."
None of those situations has been suggested, yet you imply that allowing gay mariage ensures their happening.
"I'm saying that love and a life-long commitment does not a marriage make. Lots of people have them or want them and are not getting married."
True. But they have the option.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Based on everything you guys have used to describe gay marriages, you have yet to exclude a relationship between a man and his dog, or a man and a twelve-year-old girl that's in love with him."
Then you haven't read any of the other gay marriage threads.
To me, marriage is about consensual, lifelong, romantic love: the union of spirits in a committed partnership. That's its essence, the core of its meaning, and the meaning that ANYONE you ask will say modern marriage is intended to have. Everything else is a rider.
So, let's look at that whole consensual bit. Clearly, consent is essential to marriage in its modern form; that's why we ask all partners if they're entering into the union willingly. Can a dog consent? No. Can a twelve-year-old child consent? No -- although I'll concede that this last determination is somewhat arbitrary, as we've just basically picked an age at which people are old enough to consent to things (not, mind you, that this is a bad approach).
In other words, the dog and the child are completely irrelevant to the argument.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are yelling that cucumbers are fruit, when 99% percent of the people in history would have argued that they weren't.
"Cucumbers"? "Fruit"? Look, PSI, I respect your stance, but you don't have to stoop to shallow innuendo and name-calling.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, those examples have been refuted to death in the other threads we've had. Coming up with tired old bad arguments is not a good way to support one's position.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
PSI, from what you imply, gay marriage somehow dillutes the value of every one else's marriage. I'm wondering how you came to this conclusion (you've already said that this makes you sad, which I don't really want to know about).
Also, just to toss in my 2 cents, marrying animals is illegal (or at least isn't allowed) because of a lack of consent on both parties. This line of thinking is carried on over to marrying kitchen appliances and other inanimate objects.
You can marry a 12 year old kid for several reasons. First off is the fact that they are a minor, and as such, they're unable to consent to marriage until they're 18 (or unless their parent or guardian gives them permission).
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Prediction: Massachusetts will not fall into the ocean. Or, if it doesn't it will take New Jersey with it.
Prediction: Massachusetts youngsters will not grow up wanting to marry their ponies in any greater proportion than heretofore.
Prediction: In 50 years when the next big social crisis is manufactured to divide us, we'll look back on these poor beknighted times and wonder what the fuss was about. And our grandchildren will laugh at us.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having spent all this time responding to PSI's arguments, now I'm ducking over to the other side for a moment. Or, possibly, stepping away from both sides to take another look.
I would be lying if I said that legalizing gay marriage would not have its costs. And I don't presume that allowing gays to marry will usher in a new and wonderful world where everyone respects each other and animated birds sing to us.
The events in Massachusetts are guaranteed to provoke a backlash and I have no idea what will happen. There will be politically correct teachers and professors and commentators and local leaders who go too far and try to promote the embrace of homosexuality rather than just stating its existence and leaving it at that. There will be homosexuals who flaunt themselves in bursts of freedom and defiance. There may be a larger-than-usual percentage of teenagers who experiment with homosexuality because the stigma has been lessened and that can cause problems of its own. And, rather than help to bring about a new appreciation of marriage and its commitments and responsibilities, the forced acceptance of gay marriage may help muddy the institution of marriage even further.
While I still believe that denying the legal contract of marriage to gay couples is discriminatory and divisive, I am not blind to the hazards. While I'm convinced that the biggest obstacle to the acceptance of gay marriage is that most people don't like it, rather than any inherent flaw or insufficiency in the concept itself, it may very well be that's enough and we'll have to accept that a majority of people in the world, for whatever reason, will never be able to accept it and this fight will last forever.
These issues do trouble me, where the rote recital of bible verses and the hoary invocation of traditions do not, not a bit. These are the issues I would rather spend time on.
[ May 17, 2004, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm an idiot here, but if people against gay marriage don't think gays should be able to marry because it's threatening to a heterosexual marriage, what kind of threat are all the marriages that happen in Vegas on a whim? It seems like there's a lot more working to tear the institution of marriage, however you define marriage, down than what the genders of people marrying one another are.
quote:I'm well aware that making everyone happy IS the ultimate goal here, so I'll go along.
The sarcasm is noted, but would making everybody as happy as possible really be such a terrible ultimate goal?
Posts: 288 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marraige is between TWO, LIVING, HUMANs. That's all I care for. Anything else is just ridiculous.
Posts: 677 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Space Opera, I would say that most of us that are against gay marriage are also against the trivializing of marriage that happens at Vegas.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There will be politically correct teachers and professors and commentators and local leaders who go too far and try to promote the embrace of homosexuality rather than just stating its existence and leaving it at that.
Why must stating its existance and stopping be a requirement? Should homosexuality be forever stigmatized? Now maybe I am misreading and you are saying that they are promoting people choose a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual one. First, why do you think they would? Second, do you really think a person's sexual orientation is that fickle? Are we back to people saying its a choice?
quote:There will be homosexuals who flaunt themselves in bursts of freedom and defiance.
What do you mean by that? Them NOT HIDING their homosexuality is what you fear? I am confused here.
quote:There may be a larger-than-usual percentage of teenagers who experiment with homosexuality because the stigma has been lessened and that can cause problems of its own.
Ah, so you DO want the stigma to remain. What is wrong with kids expirementing with it? What are these "problems of its own"? These vague, nothing fears are EXACTLY whats so infuriating about the arguments against gay marriage. They use a lot of words to say exactly nothing. I repeat, what is wrong with them experimenting with their own sex? Isn't that SAFER than with the opposite sex (pregnancy)?
quote:And, rather than help to bring about a new appreciation of marriage and its commitments and responsibilities, the forced acceptance of gay marriage may help muddy the institution of marriage even further.
Explain how. Really. I'd like to hear this. In reality, the only people who would think it hurts marriage are the very religious. Hmmm, seems like these people would hold religion very dear no matter who gets to do it. Is that the fear? That a religious person would otherwise think that marriage is sacred, but that if they let gays get it, then gosh darn I guess that means its not sacred anymore. Free sex for all!
Really Chris, I've come to expect better from you.
posted
It's posts like the above that galvanize each side against the other. Chris, who is obviously on the side for gay marriage, makes a post saying that he can see where the other side is coming from, gets flamed for doing so. There are so many people (on both sides) that just want to shout down the opposing arguments. As was said before, it is as though the side that yells loudest and gets offended the most must be right. It makes me sad.
Edit: Sorry for editing out what Xavier was responding to.
posted
Brother. I didn't say here that I thought it was wasn't a choice. All I said was (I edited it out before I thought that anybody had read it):
quote:
quote: Are we back to people saying its a choice?
Why not?
You imply that it is ludicrous to consider the idea that it is a choice. My only point was that there is no concensus, and that it is unreasonable to dismiss that idea out-of-hand just because you do not agree with it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems as though you are saying is that people that are concerned about those things need to stop caring about those things. You roll your eyes and those concerns and expect people to feel better? It does the opposite.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure that those against gay marriage are against Vegas marriages, etc. I guess I was just trying to say that I hear many who oppose gay marriage just being anti-gay marriage and focusing on that instead of building up an institution which they claim is sacred. It seems to be the case of simply sticking a finger in a dike instead of building a new one. Not that anyone here has exhibited this behavior; it was just an observation of my own.
quote:There will be politically correct teachers and professors and commentators and local leaders who go too far and try to promote the embrace of homosexuality rather than just stating its existence and leaving it at that.
Why must stating its existance and stopping be a requirement? Should homosexuality be forever stigmatized? Now maybe I am misreading and you are saying that they are promoting people choose a homosexual lifestyle over a heterosexual one. First, why do you think they would? Second, do you really think a person's sexual orientation is that fickle? Are we back to people saying its a choice?
Because it's already happened before, and I don't think teachers should be promoting any sort of sexual activity. I'm not talking about "Heather's Two Mommies" books, I mean teachers suggesting to children that they should experiment to discover their sexuality. Second, as I've posted here before I think sexuality is a continuum. Most are straight, a some are gay, a few are bi, a few are completely asexual. While I don't think homosexuality is always or even mostly a choice, I do think it can be for some and that for some impressionable people, trying it because it's the current fad might cause them more problems than it helps.
quote:There will be homosexuals who flaunt themselves in bursts of freedom and defiance.
What do you mean by that? Them NOT HIDING their homosexuality is what you fear? I am confused here.
Ever see the Onion article "Gay Pride Parade Sets Back Cause 50 Years"? Now is the time for homosexuals to demonstrate that they'll treat the institution of marriage with respect and dignity. I don't fear flaunting as much as I fear the inevitable backlash from people opposed to gay marriage who will just use it as ammunition. "See? They're just mocking us, we were right all along."
quote:There may be a larger-than-usual percentage of teenagers who experiment with homosexuality because the stigma has been lessened and that can cause problems of its own.
Ah, so you DO want the stigma to remain. What is wrong with kids expirementing with it? What are these "problems of its own"? These vague, nothing fears are EXACTLY whats so infuriating about the arguments against gay marriage. They use a lot of words to say exactly nothing. I repeat, what is wrong with them experimenting with their own sex? Isn't that SAFER than with the opposite sex (pregnancy)?
This wasn't worded well, I admit. I can see the increased acceptance of homosexuality used as an excuse for irresponsible or promiscuious sex that doesn't even carry the hazards of pregnancy. While I've got no problem with premarital sex I'm not fond of sex without commitment.
quote:And, rather than help to bring about a new appreciation of marriage and its commitments and responsibilities, the forced acceptance of gay marriage may help muddy the institution of marriage even further.
Explain how. Really. I'd like to hear this. In reality, the only people who would think it hurts marriage are the very religious. Hmmm, seems like these people would hold religion very dear no matter who gets to do it. Is that the fear? That a religious person would otherwise think that marriage is sacred, but that if they let gays get it, then gosh darn I guess that means its not sacred anymore. Free sex for all!
Marriage is already suffering from a lack of dedication. No-fault divorces, quickie marriages, leaving your spouse because "the spark is gone"... marriage simply isn't taken as seriously as it should be. One of the reasons I admire the gay marriage advocates is that they treasure the institution so highly they're willing to submit to public humiliation to fight for it. But one of the big arguments -- which I disagree with -- is that "letting gays in" will take away the specialness of marriage. I'm not saying that it will, but I am saying that enough people think so that I can see more straight people disdaining it. Why should they get married when it obviously doesn't mean anything anymore?
I do think that letting gays marry will ultimately strengthen society. I fear the reactions of the many people who disagree, and what they will do. This change, while a good one in my opinion, may cause too much upheaval for our society to bounce back from. I hope it won't, but it's foolish to assume that the acceptance of gay marriage won't have negative impacts.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me, marriage is about consensual, lifelong, romantic love: the union of spirits in a committed partnership. That's its essence, the core of its meaning, and the meaning that ANYONE you ask will say modern marriage is intended to have. Everything else is a rider.
Tom, this statement is exactly why people are worried about gay marriage fundamentally altering the definition of marriage (the sanctity of marriage, if you will). Because to a huge number of people in this country, "everything else" is not just a rider - it's an essential part of the definition. Even leaving out the purely religious aspects of the traditional purposes of marriage leaves more than "consensual, lifelong, romantic love" at the core.
posted
"Even leaving out the purely religious aspects of the traditional purposes of marriage leaves more than 'consensual, lifelong, romantic love' at the core."
It doesn't leave anything important. There are a few legalistic quibbles, of course, but nothing else that's remotely relevant.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to convince you - I'm trying to make you understand that THIS is the divide that needs to be crossed to get well-intentioned opponents of gay marriage to support it. They flat out disagree with your assessment of what's important (and hence defining) in marriage.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
