quote: Or if you win your word and successfully lock it down, maybe a future generation, recognizing the hypocrisy, will look to gays and say, "Who needs 'marriage', anyway? They aren't 'married', yet they have everything we want in a relationship anyway. Why don't we just get that?" Where will "marriage" be then?
I see that attitude already. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, so do I. I also see that exclusion of gays from "marriage" will only exacerbate this problem. One might optimistically believe, though, that including gays in "marriage" might even give the institution a new and stronger relevance. I'll admit that is only speculation, but I don't think it is without merit.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think it is without merit. At the very beginning of this thread, I said that this is an argument that I have absolutely no answer to.
quote: Of course, the obvious reply to this is "What about if homosexuals could get married and adopt kids? Wouldn't that strengthen, not weaken families as a whole?" I freely admit that I don't have a satisfactory answer to that -- not even one that satisifies me.
posted
Dag: Not overtly. I have never heard the issue addressed. I imagine these situations are addressed on a case by case basis. If there is a question of ambiguous gender, no one (to my knowledge) "tells" them they are one or the other.
Though, the way I have always looked at it is if someone has a "Y" chromosome, they are male regardless of their physical form, whatever the combination might be. The only thing that might give me serious pause on that distinction is if there were humans with "Y" chormosomes who made eggs and thus were capable of functioning reproductively as a female. (Does anyone know about that?) But I do not presume that to be doctrinal for the LDS church.
And this LDS belief only addresses the situation of humans (as literal children of God rather than "just" creations of God). Animals and plants have a variety of patterns when it comes to gender, and the LDS belief allows for that.
quote:I see this as case where the tight grip on the word may very well leave you all with just the word.
You may be right. In fact, as Dagonee mentioned in his post, there are certain trends already present which seem to give the lie to my definition of marriage.
Be that as it may, in my community (the one which holds my highest allegiance) there is a very clear definition of marriage and homosexual unions, common law marriages and similar arrangements do not fit that definition. Obviously I think that society as a whole would be better off if marriage were viewed in the same way as it is in my community. Hence I am against altering the definition of marriage in the wider society even further to accomplish ends which may be accomplished otherwise.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Gender differences transcending physical differences and extending into the spiritual realm is an interesting topic, although probably way off the path of this discussion except for your quick notation above. I was just curious.
quote: In mine as well, but I've adopted the view that all my community needs to protect this definition is that it not be interfered with.
I can understand that. That is one of the possible compromises. I think that what I am proposing is another compromise which could potentially meet everyone's stated objectives.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
posted
Most of that article is not new to me. I am curious what in specific you mean about it not being absolute? Do you mean that sometimes the genes from the X and Y chromosome might mix together as happens sometimes?
Anyway, the doctrine is that our spiritual identity has a gender, always has, and always will. Our bodies are flawed and imperfect, and ambiguous gender is part of that. I assume that a person born with ambiguous gender will not be ressurrected ambiguous anymore than a blind person will be ressurrected blind or a quadrapalegic will be ressurrected limbless.
Since the belief is that gender is eternal and that marriage can be eternal under the right circumstances, then (I assume) gender is more than sex since some will exist eternally in an unmarried state and yet retain their gender as an essencial part of their identity. Much of what I have said here is conjecture from doctrine rather than actual doctrine though.
(Sorry for the continuation of the tangent)
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The California Supreme Court on Thursday voided the nearly 4,000 same-sex marriages sanctioned in San Francisco this year and ruled unanimously that the mayor overstepped his authority by issuing licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
Hmmmm. I think many feared this might happen.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also see that exclusion of gays from "marriage" will only exacerbate this problem. One might optimistically believe, though, that including gays in "marriage" might even give the institution a new and stronger relevance.
KarlEd, I agree. I think the quality of a marriage, not the genders of the partners, is wahat strengthens or weakens the institution of marriage. One of the families whose marriage was just voided, is wonderful lesbian freinds of mine who have been together over a decade and have adopted two little mixed race babies (I believe one if not both were drug babies), with plans to adopt more. It angers me that the State of CA calls their marriage invalid, yet recognises the marriage of hetero couples that get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas because they were drunk.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just mean someone can have a Y chromosome and be functionally female, and can not have a Y chromosome and be functionally male, so existence of the Y chromosome isn't a valid physical test.
The doctrine is interesting; in the Catholic Church most of this is non-official theological theorizing, which I haven't read much of.
quote:It angers me that the State of CA calls their marriage invalid, yet recognises the marriage of hetero couples that get married by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas because they were drunk.
Then take heart, because the Cal. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the constitutionality of heterosexual-only marriages in California, only that the mayor of SF can't jump the gun before that ruling.
Although there's little chance the federal constitution will be interpreted to require gay marriage, state constitutions may continue to be interpreted that way. If that happens, then the Article IV Full Faith and Credit clause will be the real federal battleground.
As far as I understand it, yes, because the genes related to sex selection basically have moved to another chromosome. It may just be that your Y-chromosome definition isn't specific enough. But the genetic test alone seems problematic to me as well.
posted
Dag: Very interesting. I would love to learn more about that. I only skimmed the page you linked, did it specifically address that?
I wonder if this issue might divide this country deeply enough to tear it apart. I realize that is a pretty far-out conjecture, I just wonder.
It reminds me ever-so-slightly of the irreconcilable differences between those who owned slaves and built an economy on that wealth and those who adamantly believed it was an evil practice.
We may have some states that vehemently believe in homosexual marriage and some that vehemently disagree. The states may not be willing to recognize the marriage of other states. They may even want their own constitution that defines marriage according to their views. Some states may want to separate themselves. I dunno.
posted
IIRC, that has not been observed (procreating female with Y chromosome or procreating male with X). But just because I or others haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: that has not been observed (procreating female with Y chromosome or procreating male with X)
Well, I'm a male with an X, and I've reproduced. But I know that's not what you meant.
quote: We may have some states that vehemently believe in homosexual marriage and some that vehemently disagree. The states may not be willing to recognize the marriage of other states. They may even want their own constitution that defines marriage according to their views. Some states may want to separate themselves. I dunno.
I can't see that happening (civil war over this). No state's economy is significantly dependant on homosexuals either marrying or not marrying, like the states were dependant on the slave-based agriculture.
In fact, I cannot think of a single war ever fought that didn't have a strong economic factor. I am counting conquest as a form of economic growth. Can anybody think of a war that proves me wrong?
posted
Would it be worth the effort to specifically call commitments by two people the same gender "marriage" even before SSM is legalized? Would it help propagate the meme that homosexuals can get married? Same for using "husband" and "wife" rather than partner.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
