quote:quote: Originally posted by Princess Leah: Well, whether or not it makes a difference in effective parenting or not, gender *is* more than a matter of plumbing.
Obviously, but to the point where it hinders parenthood? What aspects of gender affect a person's competence to either discipline or nourish?
No, not at all. I don't think that there is an inherently ideal parental combination, either man+woman or man+man or woman+woman or woman or man or aunt+grandma+first cousin twice removed. Whatever.
I just thought that as long as this thread is a discussion of GLBTQ rights, letting by an implication that "gender= no more complicated than organs" would be a little hypocritical.
edit because I fail at brackets.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Lalo, I already said that I know that I have no scientific evidence for the beginning assumptions of my position. I believe it anyway, and am not going to act as though it's not true. I stand behind it.
If you really want to know more where I'm coming from, this might help.
I read the article, but isn't that something we already went over? I understand it's a part of LDS dogma that homosexuality is forbidden, but I thought I addressed it with this:
quote:If you have no reason but religious dogma, shouldn't only Mormons be subject to Mormon morality? I think you'd object to, say, Muslims demanding that you pray five times a day, even if they had a large enough population to force it into law -- why would it be any different with a different minority in religious headlights?
By no means am I demanding you enter in a homosexual marriage. Only that you maintain the separation of church and state, precisely so everyone -- including, of all groups to forget this lesson, the LDS Church -- is free of religious persecution and control.
I understand that it's your religion, and I respect that you feel God doesn't want you to be homosexual. I also respect that Muslims believe Allah wants them to pray five times a day, and that Catholics believe God desires Communion with us. But by no means would I support any of the above legislating any of their beliefs on any of the others -- and you're Mormon, MPH. If anyone in this country should understand the importance of religious tolerance, it's you.
By all means, live your life as you feel God wants you to live it. I even support any proselytization you'd like to do against homosexuality -- if you'd like to convince anyone through persuasion to oppose homosexuality, bully for you. My problem comes in when you try to force your religion on others -- laws based on God-said-so are numerous and contradictory, and have no place in the US government. Unless you have some kind of logical reason that homosexuality must be contained -- and I haven't seen any, from anyone -- you really don't have any right to deny a minority their rights, even if you feel God doesn't like their behavior. The same happened to Joseph Smith, didn't it?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gordon B. Hinckley: Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
Sounds sensible. I wonder how much leeway he'd give to interpreting the phrase "other circumstances."
quote:Originally posted by Gordon B. Hinckley: Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
I guess even President Hinckley is having a bit of trouble coming up with a list of specific consequences of same-sex marriage. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If anyone in this country should understand the importance of religious tolerance, it's you.
Religions tolerance means allowing people to worship God according to their own conscience. I do understand how important it is. I support it, and am not violating it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If anyone in this country should understand the importance of religious tolerance, it's you.
Religions tolerance means allowing people to worship God according to their own conscience. I do understand how important it is. I support it, and am not violating it.
That's half of the definition. It also means you will not force your religion on another -- nor them on you.
To follow Rob's lead, let's say "private citizen Ken Keating Kain decides he doesn't like that inter-racial marriages are recognized" -- he feels it's against God's will to grant them legal recognition. Since there's no scientific evidence that interracial relationships are somehow harmful beyond threats of a nebulous danger to society, does Kain have any right to restrict the rights of minorities to marry whom they will? Even if he has the majority on his side?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I need to interject for a second to point out that "rights" are artificial social constructs. Relying too much on the assumption of a universal "right" to marry ignores the fact that SSM opponents deny the existence of such a right, and are in fact seeking to modify the Constitution to make that denial explicit.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have figured out why this exchange has been bothering me so much.
Reluctantly, I took the time and effort to try to partiall explain where I was coming from. I was led to believe that I would be listened to with "an open mind". From the reactions I have received, it doesn't appear as though most recent participants were interested in trying to understand where I am coming from at all. They appear to be only interested in getting me to answer questions so that they can argue/debate my answers, not so that they can understand me.
I already said that I'm not trying to convince anybody. I already said I didn't want to argue, and I didn't want to debate. I feel like I was drawn further into one under false pretenses.
Because of this exchange, I am less likely to share my feelings and views, especially as they touch on sensitive subjects, than I was 24 hours ago.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter, you've been saying that you were too tired to engage in this conversation since you entered this conversation.
Seriously, though, the problem as I see it is that some of the people talking to you here simply don't get the premises on which your conclusions are based; they hear and understand the words you're giving them, but the foundation of those words -- the assumptions on which those words rely -- is absent for them. So it's like you've said "chocolate cake is bad because it encourages right-handed slicing." They don't understand why you think someone's slicing preference might depend on the type of cake, or even why a particular slicing preference might matter to the extent that one might consider refusing to call chocolate cake "cake" at all, to discourage people from ordering it.
And since that's precisely the stuff you don't want to explain, you're tiring yourself explaining the steps they DO understand and beating your head against the wall when they leap to false conclusions based upon the stuff they don't.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom he doesn't have to explain himself. let him be.
I can't disagree with him more, but getting dogpiled really sucks.
Porter, I know it's hard to walk away from a thread that upsets you, but maybe you should. And maybe I should follow my own advice (but I know I won't.)
quote:And since that's precisely the stuff you don't want to explain, you're tiring yourself explaining the steps they DO understand and beating your head against the wall when they leap to false conclusions based upon the stuff they don't.
Were those people willing to accept MPH at his word, they could part ways realizing there is something they don't understand about his way of thinking - useful knowledge to be sure.
However, the repeated restatements of what he's saying after being explicitly told that those restatements are wrong is incredibly tiring.
MPH hasn't explained his beliefs to their satisfaction. OK. That doesn't mean he needs to be continually hounded about it and things he has explicitly denied thrown back at him. He was willing to share a certain portion of his beliefs here. Instead of simply saying, "OK, I don't understand this part of your reasoning," he has been told he thinks homosexuals are inferior, that he thinks gay marriage will cause him to get a divorce, and a raft of other nonsense.
It's one thing to restate something to see if you understood it and be wrong in that restatement. It's another thing entirely to persist despite a clear, non-ambiguous declaration that the restatement is wrong, even if that declaration is not accompanied by additional explanation.
Porter has certainly earned an expectation of good faith. If he says, "no, I don't mean X, but I'm not comfortable explaining further" then people should accept that at face value.
I know there are topics I flat out won't touch here, simply because I doubt my ability to explain accurately and I consider the topic so important that a misinterpretation would be worse than silence. Those doubts are especially high when I have reason to believe that, if interpreted wrongly, people will not be gracious enough to simply acknowledge I haven't explained. If I suspect people will continue to fill in the unexplained gaps with interpretations I have told them are inaccurate, I probably won't bother.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is (now) off-topic somewhat, but I wanted to answer pooka's question from a couple of pages ago:
quote:But you stopped believing (in Mormonism). Unless you never believed it. If one cannot change such beliefs, what is the point of trying to educate away prejudice? I know, I know, people are seeing me as the prejudiced one in this case. But if I can't be taught and you can't be taught, then we just go on with our lives, I guess.
I did stop believing in Mormonism. However, despite touted scriptural promises I never found any compelling reason to continue believing, even after years of sincere petition.
I believe that sexuality is a continuum. I believe the same is true of spiritual belief. On both ends of these continua are people who feel that the pertinent issue (sexuality, core spiritual belief) is immutable, and integral to their core self. I think the vast majority of people can change to some degree, but I also think that it takes a stronger catalyst the closer one is to either extreme, perhaps even something cataclysmic for those on the far ends of the continua.
There was a time in my life that I rejected the idea that I was gay, or even the idea that anyone was gay in the sense that it was a natural sexual orientation. I don't believe that way now, of course. I believe that I am pretty far on the gay side of the spectrum. That said, I probably could make it through the necessary sexual acts to get a woman pregnant, but I don't think that fact alone is sufficient reason to subject a woman (or myself) to the charade that a full-blown hetersexual relationship would be for me. However, I also believe (and have been told by them) that there are people who simply could not function at all in a heterosexual coupling.
In terms of spirituality, I never reached a point as an adult where I felt that my spiritual beliefs were central to who I was. From many discussions on this forum, however, I think there are many people for whom their spiritual beliefs (or at least the core of them) are central to who they are. (Any of them can correct me if I'm wrong. Perhaps my terminology isn't the same as they would use, but I suspect I'm close to the mark in what I'm trying to say.)
I'm definitely not saying that I can't be taught and you can't be taught. We both can be taught, if we're willing to learn. But you can learn another point of view and learn to respect it without adopting it. All the understanding of pure heterosexual attraction in the world isn't going to make me straight. All the understanding of the athiest point of view in the world isn't likely to make Dagonee an atheist, from what I've been able to surmise. But we both get along pretty well, I think. I'm not out to change him and he's not out to change me. He respects me, I feel, and I have nothing but respect for him.
Do I think someone's core beliefs can change? Sure. But I think the more strongly they are held, the more cataclysmic the event necessary to cause such a change. And if someone is happy and is willing to allow others their own happiness, I don't see the need to wish such calamity on them.
This is what I mean when I say that I believe some people don't feel they "choose" to believe in God. I think they feel that God simply is and to not believe in him would be like not believing in the sky or the oceans. Or for some, maybe that the evidence of his existence (as they see it) is so overwhelmingly obvious that there's no choice involved. Sure, I can naively and close-mindedly say that they "choose" to interpret their experiences the way they do, but isn't that hubristic to an insane degree?
Does this clarify for you what I was talking about earlier?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Porter has certainly earned an expectation of good faith. If he says, "no, I don't mean X, but I'm not comfortable explaining further" then people should accept that at face value.
And part of that discomfort is probably due to the nature of the inquiry. /my 2 cents.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance: will gay men still be attracted to men who have grown up in a world where gayness is accepted? I can't provide an argument for why they would. Is very much a butterfly effect kind of speculation.
I really wish you would at least try to provide some sort of arguement for this, because at face value it seems like a completely bizarre speculation from my point of view. It seems to belie a fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of sexual and romantic/emotional attraction, in my opinion.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Karl, I'm glad we're finally interacting here. I didn't post this thread to bug you, but did wonder if it would later.
I made a speculation on what might be an essential difference between men and women. If that difference is altered, will the same rules apply? What is it about masculinity that attracts one? My position is that you love a person, not their gender. I have been attracted to many people besides my husband over the years, but I am not compelled to act on it, and I remain attracted to him as well, and he's available to me, so it works out well for me. I do understand, on the face of it, the apparent unfairness that you don't feel like society recognizes your right to make a similar choice. But I don't think the choice is the same.
I don't think it's difficult to love someone similar to oneself. It takes a social institution to provide a union between men and women, just as it took troops to enforce desegregation in the sourth. In my view, protecting marriage and families is the only reason for society to exist.
Which brings us back to the question of what is considered a marriage and a family. We disagree. We believe different things. If such matters are inalterable, then it just gets slugged out by the numbers in legislatures.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Porter has certainly earned an expectation of good faith. If he says, "no, I don't mean X, but I'm not comfortable explaining further" then people should accept that at face value.
I don't think most people have the ABILITY to do this, Dag. It actually requires a mode of thought that takes a certain amount of training -- and has nothing to do with how much someone is or is not respected.
Now, I'm not saying that people shouldn't take what Porter says at face value. But I'm saying he shouldn't consider it an insult if they don't, or even assume they're not listening to him -- because what he's asking of them is something that I don't think most people are actually mentally equipped to DO, at least not reflexively.
--------
quote: If that difference is altered, will the same rules apply?
Pooka, I don't think I understand why you believe that any of the integral differences between men and women would be universally altered by permitting people to marry other people of the same gender. I just can't get to the roots of such a claim.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is interesting to me to see how my views on this issue changed from when I was still a Mormon to now when I am not.
The following is one of my posts from November on a Mormon message board about my struggle with reconciling my values and the solution I came to:
quote:"I believe in always subjecting my views in favor the Almighty's direction. Therefore, I completely support the First Presidency's statement when they spoke for the church and said:
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
Now, I would like help finding a way to reconcile this position (now my position) on same sex civil unions with my value system. My highest value is on doing the Lord's will, therefore it trumps all my other values, and I substitute God's judgment in place of my own, for "[his] thoughts are higher than [my] thoughts". He has a greater perspective and things that are usually wrong could be right in other circumstances. However, I would like to find a way for me to be comfortable in denying equal treatment under the law to those who desire legal partner benefits in same sex unions. I believe there is a way and I would like you to help me find it.
When Nephi was told by God to kill Laban, he was able to reconcile this command with his values by understanding that he could save a whole nation by killing this man. Joseph Smith was able to reconcile polygamy with his values. But, even if I cannot reconcile supporting measures that "do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship", I will follow it. And if asked why, I'll say, "I know not, save the Lord commanded me" (Moses 5:6).
We uphold the US Constitution and feel that its creation was inspired, and we support this democracy. Granted, we know that the perfect system of government is a theocracy where the rule of God is supreme. In a theocracy, although everyone is free to choose what they will do, they are subject to the legal consequences that God sets forth because there is no question that God's law is right. In a democracy, no one person's opinion can decide a issue because everyone's opinion is respected equally, we have to compromise and not be overbearing by exerting our will and beliefs on others and we expect to be treated the same. We do not live in a theocracy, we live in a democracy. Although we know we are right on this issue and we do not want society to be corrupted or people to sin, we should not take away another's ability to act according to their conscience as long as they are not hurting anyone else. (Now if we can demostrate hurt, that might be a way for me to reconcile my values).
The following is how I felt about same sex marriages before the First Presidency said that I should not support legal status for same sex relationships.
"I value protecting the opportunity for people to be able to act according to their own conscience without fear of governmental reprisal in most circumstances. I also value an equal treatment under the law in most cases. I cannot justify withholding partner insurance benefits, hospital visitation rights, alimony, custody claims, tax breaks, Social Security benefits, etc., from one segment of the population who have an enduring committed relationship and are only kept from making it a legal contract by the laws of the land. Therefore, homosexuals should be given the opportunity to enter into a legal contract where they get the same legal benefits and liabilities that heterosexuals do.
However, I also value the ability of religious societies to be able act according to their conscience without government interference for the most part. Homosexual partner contracts should not be called marriage, because marriage is a religious covenant whose definition comes from God, and no man or government under heaven has the authority to redefine it. They may try and put it in their books, but the real definition hasn't changed, for God recognizes none such. And His commandments based on marriage only apply to those who are married His way. I don't think the government should have ever adopted that the term marriage, but hindsight is 20/20. So, let's correct it now and refer to partner benefits in the law books and let religions alone decide who can marry, but government decide who can enter into these legal partner contracts."
Now, of course, I do not support same sex partner contracts. But, help me to reconcile this if you can. It might help if you knew that I do not believe individuals with same gender attraction are born that way. But, I don't believe it is a choice either for most of them. In my opinion, sexual attraction (straight or gay) is learned, or acquired through one's interaction with one's environment. As an illustration, people can even learn to be sexual attracted to animals or inanimate objects (fetishes). In saying this, I do not want you to think this learning requires study, intent, or even conscious awareness, but can be learned passively.
So, I do not think homosexuals are a class of people like racial minorities, or women, who have been discriminated against for simply being born that way. I believe that people with same gender attraction can learn to be attracted to the opposite sex. But, I think they will always be vulnerable to temptation, even as alcholics are.
I don't like when the majority represses a minority. When congress enacted laws to criminalize polygamy, it was the religious right forcing their beliefs on Mormons. I know that the strength of nations rests on the strength of its families. I think we should continue to promote heterosexual marriages through persuation and example. But, why should we force our views on others through legislation? Perhaps it will speed up the moral decline of the nation and introduce more pain into interpersonal relationships, and speed up the judgments of God because not as many people will get married. I guess we just can't foresee the consequences as God can, and if we love the people and we love the nation we should not support legal recognition of same sex unions. But, this position doesn't appear to be Constitutionally supported.
I think I have found the answer to my question. My value of acting for the greater good of my brothers and sisters outweighs my respect for letting people act according to their own conscience. This is the same reasoning I use when preventing a suicide, or letting a child play in the street. The difference with these examples is it is easy for people of all religious or philosophical backgrounds to see that preventing suicide or playing in the street is acting for the greater good, but it is not so easily seen or agreed upon with preventing same sex unions. Plus, I think the world has a problem with being our brother's keeper. But, the Lord expects us at least to try."
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT WAY ANYMORE and I will not defend it. I am embarrassed by some of the things I said there. I shudder at the egotism and arrogance. I want to put distance between those views and who I am now.
I don't believe it is the government's business to interfere with consenting adults who desire to enter into a marriage (same gender and polygamous marriages included).
quote: I don't believe it is the government's business to interfere with consenting adults who desire to enter into a marriage (same gender and polygamous marriages included).
Note that "marriage," as it's meant in this thread, IS government interference. If "marriage" or its equivalent isn't the business of government AT ALL, then we're having the wrong conversation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Hi Karl, I'm glad we're finally interacting here. I didn't post this thread to bug you, but did wonder if it would later.
I made a speculation on what might be an essential difference between men and women. If that difference is altered, will the same rules apply? What is it about masculinity that attracts one? My position is that you love a person, not their gender. I have been attracted to many people besides my husband over the years, but I am not compelled to act on it, and I remain attracted to him as well, and he's available to me, so it works out well for me. I do understand, on the face of it, the apparent unfairness that you don't feel like society recognizes your right to make a similar choice. But I don't think the choice is the same.
I don't think it's difficult to love someone similar to oneself. It takes a social institution to provide a union between men and women, just as it took troops to enforce desegregation in the sourth. In my view, protecting marriage and families is the only reason for society to exist.
Which brings us back to the question of what is considered a marriage and a family. We disagree. We believe different things. If such matters are inalterable, then it just gets slugged out by the numbers in legislatures.
I think one of the core differences in our opinions is that I don't think there are as many fundamental differences between genders as you (and others) seem to think. Clearly physiology is one of them. All the rest I can think of off the top of my head aren't exclusive, even though they may be present in one gender in a greater proportion than the other.
I believe it's easier to like people similar to oneself but I can't change that "like" to "love" without first defining what you mean by "love". In terms of physical attraction, I don't think it's even remotely true to say that it's easier to love someone similar to you than different (in general). The fact that humans procreate at all should testify to that.
And in reality what we're talking about mostly in this thread is physical attraction. People choose their friends often for very different reasons than they choose their lovers, and sometimes in the case of lovers, those two different criteria clash horribly. Romantic love is difficult regardless of how similar two people are. And very often, two people who are too similar can't stand to be around each other.
I'm willing to accept that we may fundamentally disagree on what constitutes a family or a marriage, and we may indeed have to "slug it out" in the legislatures. However, before it comes to blows, you might want to ask yourself what it is you are trying to prevent. As far as social constructs go, there already are gay families, whether you are willing to allow the term or not. Men can already form long lasting relationships with men, and often can be parents to children, though legally they have almost no protection for their families. If SSM is prevented in the legal arena, it is not going to stop the formation of same-sex de facto families. It is only going to create a growing second class status for same-sex families and cause children to be raised without the legal protections the priviledged class gets. That is, unless you are also going to follow up the prevention of SSM with laws forbidding children to live with gay couples even when they are biologically related to one of them.
But getting back to what it is about masculinity that attracts one. Well, forgive the mental images if they offend you, but what attracts me is a hairy chest, a handsome masculine face, a nice fuzzy butt, and a penis of average or better length and girth. These things are pretty much exclusive to men and aren't likely to change much regardless of how acceptable homosexual relationships become. Other things that attract me in a person are strength, curiosity, a cheerful personality, kindness, and honesty. I might feel physically attracted to someone who has all the first list of qualities, but none of the second, but I wouldn't want to live with them. What fundamental quality of masculinity do you recognize that will diminish or cease to exist if homosexuality is more accepted in society?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
I think men and women are different, but even while there are some blatant differences (physiology), that doesn't mean that these overwhelm an individual person's being, in total. I'm more of a holistic type. What everyone glosses over in this argument, and I which I think creates a false dichotomy of "continuum" vs. "absoltism" is that I, personally, feel that many behaviors are _weighted_ continuums. I think sexual preference is a good example. I think that people can slide along this continuum, but that heterosexuality is weighted. I also think that different people can slide differing amounts from where they are. We, as a species, love to rationalize and simplify our environment, but this is a case where I think we've (on both sides) gone a bit too far. ---
I think you have cherished, honorable beliefs that you see under attack, and possibly contradicted, and therefore have created this lattice work of assumptions that are plausible in order to buttress the beliefs. I have only anecdotal evidence, but I see you implications just not happening, and seen contradictory situations.
posted
As I was thinking about this, I have to wonder if a gay person contemplating the benefits of marriage considers punishment of an unfaithful spouse to be one. It's not one that crosses my mind frequently, but as I was talking about fidelity in my last post it arose.
One way men and women are different tends to be who by default gets custody of minor children in a divorce. Who gets alimony. Why are there these differences? How will they be affected by there only being one gender involved?
That doesn't even get into the likelihood that cloning will be viewed differently once you have people for whom that is the simplest way for them to have chldren of their own "blood." I mean, that may seem like an outlandish fear, but I seem to specialize in that.
The situation of a surrogate child with 3 biological parents and 2 legal parents, who wound up with no parent at birth because her legal parents divorced (I believe I saw this on Nova) I think situations like this will not be as outlandish. They may not happen everyday, but things can get very, very complicated. (P.S. The formerly legal mother wanted the child but was being prevented by the formerly legal father, because if the mother took custody, he would be liable for child support.)
P.P.S. I would conjecture that what a man might lose is the psychological differentiation from the caregiver that a boy would experience being bonded to a woman. Certainly children are deprived of one parent or the other. And there have been some experiments in replacing the absent parent with another of the same gender. As sanctioned polygamy was winding down in Utah, there were often sister-wives who lived together. One worked and the other raised the children. It's hard to know whether the children from these families were maladjusted due to the stigma on polygamy or from the family structure, or just good old genetics. I mean, plenty of people are nuts for no particular reason.
quote:One way men and women are different tends to be who by default gets custody of minor children in a divorce. Who gets alimony. Why are there these differences? How will they be affected by there only being one gender involved?
Gender is no longer a factor in alimony.
In the vast majority of states, if not all, the "tender years" rule which by default assigned children under a certain age to their mother's custody has been replaced with a "primary caregiver" rule.
So, technically, those differences don't exist any more, even though women are far more likely to get alimony and custody. As to how they will be applied in same-sex cases: If gender is being used improperly by judges to determine alimony, then all that will happen in same-sex situations is that judges will lose the ability to improperly use gender to determine alimony. As to custody, there is already a vast body of law in place concerning what happens when a biological parent is married to a person not related by blood to the children. That law would be applied in same sex couples.
quote:That doesn't even get into the likelihood that cloning will be viewed differently once you have people for whom that is the simplest way for them to have chldren of their own "blood." I mean, that may seem like an outlandish fear, but I seem to specialize in that.
The situation of a surrogate child with 3 biological parents and 2 legal parents, who wound up with no parent at birth because her legal parents divorced (I believe I saw this on Nova) I think situations like this will not be as outlandish. They may not happen everyday, but things can get very, very complicated.
As you said, these things happen now, without same sex marriage.
I do fear that redefining legal marriage might cause some people to attempt to, for example, force licensed clergy to marry any couple who asks (not in a church ceremony, but acting in a purely civil role). I think such attempts can be stopped under existing first amendment law. If not, then clergy will simply give back their licenses and people wishing a religious wedding will also have to find a civil celebrant. I'm willing to risk that because I'm perfectly willing to fight that battle if I have to.
As to cloning, this will have to be dealt with whether or not same sex civil marriage is allowed.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: cloning and surrogacy, I think it's a matter of demand. We are already facing health care rationing. Society will either have to foot the bill (in terms of resources, not so much financial) for gays to be cloned or restrict services that are currently available for some to have fertility treated. Health care has gone from 1/20th of our GNP to 1/6th, and the baby boomers are aging. Each of the individuals involved can afford to pay, but there aren't enough nurses and facilities. That's my practical argument for opposing cloning. It doesn't really charge my "twisted and evil" button.
How do they determine the primary caregiver when both parents work and the child is in daycare? Will this be more likely the case with gay marriage or no?
As far as the separation of religious and civil marriage, they already do that in Brazil and probably other countries. A church ceremony has to be accompanied by a marriage license in Utah at least. What worries me is the idea that a clergy would have to sign an oath of willingness to perform a same sex marriage in order to be licensed by the state. I don't know what kinds of stuff they already have to agree to, though.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do they determine the primary caregiver when both parents work and the child is in daycare?
They generally don't, although even in two-worker families it's sometimes clear which parent is the PG. When there's no PG, courts use a more general "best interest of the child" standard.
quote:Will this be more likely the case with gay marriage or no?
Don't know. But it's extremely common in heterosexual divorces now, so I doubt adding same sex couples to the mix could change the ratio by much.
quote:As far as the separation of religious and civil marriage, they already do that in Brazil and probably other countries. A church ceremony has to be accompanied by a marriage license in Utah at least. What worries me is the idea that a clergy would have to sign an oath of willingness to perform a same sex marriage in order to be licensed by the state.
I worry about that, too, but am confident in our ability to fight it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What worries me is the idea that a clergy would have to sign an oath of willingness to perform a same sex marriage in order to be licensed by the state. I don't know what kinds of stuff they already have to agree to, though.
To sign the certificate and send it in within 15 days after the ceremony.
There is no "right" to a religious ceremony for anyone in this country, it is completely at the discretion of the clergy being asked to officiate. I could decline to do a wedding because I don't think redheads should get married, because I've already got three weddings scheduled for a particular month and don't want to do any more, or because the couple fought so much in pre-marital counseling that I figure they'd be divorced the week after. It is solely my discretion.
Edit to add: If I were to start being obviously capricious about this I could get into trouble with my denomination. But not with the state. A current example -- some churches/clergy won't marry a couple who are living together prior to the wedding. Some will.
posted
I don't see how any clergy member could ever be forced by the government to perform a religious ceremony that violated their doctrine.
Well, I see how the law could me made, but it would never survive the courts. It's the flip side of church and state that usually isn't nearly as discussed as the other way around. It's almost entirely the reason that clause was put in the constitution in the first place.
Personally I don't see a problem with same sex couples raising children. There are already so many mainstream alternatives to a one man/one woman parent household that produce perfectly healthy children that I don't think adding one more to the mix will harm anything. I don't see, however, how a gay couple would prefer to clone themselves instead of adopting or having a surrogate child.
The most common argument I hear against gay parents is that it promotes the gay lifestyle to children, thus imposing some sort of gayness on them. I don't really see how it makes them any more likely to be gay, but then I'm in the camp that sees homosexuality as more hardwired than as a conscious choice, but then more and more I think it falls into a gray area. Regardless, I once heard the child of a lesbian couple put it like this: "Where do the majority of gay people come from? Heterosexual parents. So why is it more likely that Homosexual parents will produce homosexual children?" Makes sense to me.
What confuses me is the idea that the 21st century family is somehow an ages old thing. The idea of an equal husband/wife sharing in the raising of their children, and for the matter, the raising of children and how they are treated today, is so vastly different from how it was in the 19th century and back, and even the early on 20th century that I wonder what people are talking about.
Women's lib destroyed the common conceptions of what a family was in the early and middle part of the 20th century, and I think we're better off for it.
I don't think the nation will ever come to an agreement on this issue until there's a basic agreement that civil unions and marriage are two different things. As Dag said, few people make the distinction. Marriage to me is a religious act. I don't think the government has any place legislating that, it's for the church to decide. But civil unions are a bestowing of legal rights, wholly controlled by the government, having nothing to do with religion. And those rights should be equally spread amongst everyone in the nation.
pooka -
How is it biologically possible for a kid to have THREE biological parents?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the case pooka was refering to there was the man who provided the sperm, the woman who provided the egg, and the woman whose womb the embryo was inplanted in. The last one was not genetically the child's parent, but she did carry it and give birth, which is a pretty darn biological connection.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
One egg donor, one sperm donor, one woman who carries the fetus to term. (Even if you want to define 'biological parent' as 'contributor of genetic material', the surrogate mother does pass on some.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman even though the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate.
I know this isn't really news, but it hadn't been posted here yet. I'm rather angry he's spending time and money attempting to enshrine his own values in the constitution at the expense of a minority.
Posts: 1813 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, it really pisses me off when I hear comments like, "Now I really feel like God is in the White House."
...first of all, if I wanted to be picky, I could claim that you're calling Dubya God.
Secondly, why oh why are you trying to destroy one of the principles of this country which many churches claim to value so much? Really. So many religions came here to avoid being persecuted by contries that had state religions and that were generally being not so nice. Like, as someone else mentioned, the Huguenots.
But go on. You go worship your Lord Dubya, and I will laugh at you from Australia if this country turns into something out of A Handmaid's Tale.
quote:I don't see how any clergy member could ever be forced by the government to perform a religious ceremony that violated their doctrine.
Well, I see how the law could me made, but it would never survive the courts. It's the flip side of church and state that usually isn't nearly as discussed as the other way around. It's almost entirely the reason that clause was put in the constitution in the first place.
They wouldn't be forced. Instead, the law would say something like, "No publicly licensed marriage celebrant may deny services based on ..."
The need for a public license would be the hook. Revocation of the license would be the stick.
Like I said, I think it could be stopped either legally or politically.
quote:You know, it really pisses me off when I hear comments like, "Now I really feel like God is in the White House."
posted
I have three issues I want to discuss; two are on topic, but one is definitely off on a tangent.
1.) Several statements made by Dagonee have got me thinking about the difference between Civil Union and Marriage. While what I am about to say is not necessarily true by the letter of the law, I think it still stands as a valid concept.
In a sense, all marriages are Civil Unions. What happens in the Church does not make a legal marriage, it is what happens at the court house that counts. All marriages are legally registered Unions. Any ceremony is just that, ceremonial.
One could have a spritual/church marriage without having a legal courthouse marriage, and the opposite, a courthouse marriage without any religious componenet to it. Of course, the law would only recognise the courthouse marriage. So, again, the ceremony itself is purely cerimonial.
We could adopt this concept more ridgely in the name of Same Sex Marriage. What Same Sex couple are looking for is legal protections, rights, and responsibilities. Whether any Church is willing to sanctify this union, and convert it into a marriage is up to the individual churches to resolve. Some will, some won't; so be it.
So, although currently it is merely my personal perspective, we could to some extent preserve the concept of marriage by making it a spiritual and ceremonial process, and reserve the concept of Unions as a purely legal process.
So, if a straight couple are married in a civil ceremony, they are legally married in concept. They have a legal civil union. If they want to be formally 'married' in the spritual sense, they would have to have a Church Wedding.
2.) I don't see any reason to compell any churches or ministers to preform gay weddings. That is purely a matter for the church's greater governing body to decide. I am confident that there would be plenty of churches willing to perform such a ceremony, and see no need to compell, say, the Catholic Church to take part. That would be a matter of the State dictating Church policy, and I don't think that is right nor do I think it would be allowed.
3.) Now to the point that strays very much from the central topic. My brother is absolutely convinced that the Polygamists want Same Sex Marriages legalized. Once that happens the polygamists see that as the opening of the flood gates. If gay people can marry then there is no justifiable reason from a civil rights point of view that a Man shouldn't be able to have multiple wives.
I'm not saying I support this point of view, but if the marraige rights are expanded certainly more extreme groups are going to take that as a precedent to expand rights even farther.
I do see a flaw in this arguement though. Most polygamists are viewing polygamy as a man having many wives, but from a civil rights perspective, if a man can have several wives than there is no reason why a wife can't have several husbands.
That, more than any other thing I can think of, has the power to weaken and compromise both marriage and family. If a husband can have many wives and each of those wives can legally have other husbands who have other wives who also have other husbands who also have other wives who also have other husbands then the whole concept of family and marriage seems to have been lost.
With a family structure so complex how can you determine who has the responsibility for who? Can one husband say that those kids, despite the fact that they are the children of his wife, are not his responsibility, let the other husbands take care of them? What about custody in the event that one parent dies? What about inheritance? What about countless other legal issues?
To some extent, I'm not sure whether people making the arguement that Same Sex Marriage opens the door to Poly-sex marriages is a way of fighting against Gay Marriage, or if they really believe that polygamy is a valid extention of marriage civil rights?
Still, I see polygamy as a far greater threat to marriage and family than Gay Marriage.
This last point is an admitted Tangental. I'm not making any great argument here, just curious if anyone has an opinion on it.
posted
I've noticed a few comments about gender in here and have a comment myself.
Taking into consideration that gender and sex are not the same, same sex marriage applies to two people who have the same sex. Legally, a lesbian or gay couple could get married if one is a transgender identified person who has not gotten their sex changed on their birth certificate. This varies by state of course.
When a father and a mother are mentioned, is this their gender? Their sex? Their role in the child's life? Can the "husband" have the mothering role and the "wife" the fathering?
While stereotypically this isn't the case, who's to say that it doesn't happen. Gender roles aren't the same as they used to be.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman
I just want to know, which man and which woman? I mean, if our Constitution is only going to allow one couple to be married, who's it going to be? Are we going to hold a lottery? Is it one per generation? If that couple breaks up, or one of the two people dies, do we get to draw again, or does someone have to marry the survivor?
Ooooh! Maybe we could hold a big TV talent show and all get to vote on who the couple will be. They don't get a say in it. We pick!
Then they have to tour the country showing us all what marriage is. They visit county fairs and hold hands while sharing food on a stick. They do the talk show circuit to keep us all up to date on how that marriage thing is working out.
posted
Bok and Karl: If there is no psychological difference between men and women, then you are right and I am wrong.
But I think there is a difference. I have ventured to say what that difference might be. Most people have some idea there is a difference, they just aren't able to phrase it without some kind of offensive value judgement. Even though my statement was not a value judgement, it ruffled all kinds of feathers.
But if there is no difference then there are two possibilities: 1) Homosexual attraction is purely physical. or 2) It might be possible for a gay person to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.
And yeah, I know I take things to extremes. I really don't see the world as all black all white. I just suggest that the exclusively homosexual mindset has its extreme aspects.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:They wouldn't be forced. Instead, the law would say something like, "No publicly licensed marriage celebrant may deny services based on ..."
The need for a public license would be the hook. Revocation of the license would be the stick.
I'm not sure of the exact breakdown, but in many states clergy aren't "publicly licensed" in the first place. By signing the marriage certificate you testify that you fit the qualifications for someone allowed to solemnize marriages, but there's no other form to fill out or registration process ahead of time. (This is not true in all states.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bok and Karl: If there is no psychological difference between men and women, then you are right and I am wrong.
But I think there is a difference. I have ventured to say what that difference might be. Most people have some idea there is a difference, they just aren't able to phrase it without some kind of offensive value judgement. Even though my statement was not a value judgement, it ruffled all kinds of feathers.
But if there is no difference then there are two possibilities: 1) Homosexual attraction is purely physical. or 2) It might be possible for a gay person to be attracted to a member of the opposite sex.
Invalid argument.
One might choose only mates of a particular gender, and still pick between members of that gender on the basis of something other than physical attraction.
Probably that's what most people do.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi. Just got back from 11 hours at work, so I'm a little behind.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I have figured out why this exchange has been bothering me so much.
Reluctantly, I took the time and effort to try to partiall explain where I was coming from. I was led to believe that I would be listened to with "an open mind". From the reactions I have received, it doesn't appear as though most recent participants were interested in trying to understand where I am coming from at all. They appear to be only interested in getting me to answer questions so that they can argue/debate my answers, not so that they can understand me.
I already said that I'm not trying to convince anybody. I already said I didn't want to argue, and I didn't want to debate. I feel like I was drawn further into one under false pretenses.
Because of this exchange, I am less likely to share my feelings and views, especially as they touch on sensitive subjects, than I was 24 hours ago.
Let me just say my primary purpose in this thread hasn't been to debate MPH so much as it has been to understand him. Further, let me clarify exactly what I was hoping to wrap my head around.
If MPH is under the impression that I don't understand why he thinks gay marriage is wrong, he misunderstood me. I think I can say that I have a pretty good understanding of why he believes this, and there's nothing about that particular position that I really have any problem with. What really baffles me is the kind of sin he thinks gay marriage is.
I know a lot about Mormons. I've been one for much of my life. One of the things I like so much about this particular faith, and others like it, is that they're usually quite good about respecting non-believers. And when it comes down to their beliefs of right and wrong, there are basically two types of sin.
The first type are obvious things like murder, burglary, rape and so on. God tells us not to murder people, and no one really has a problem with putting these sorts of God's laws into a secular government-enforcement scenario. The reason for this is that it's pretty obvious, whether you're a Mormon or not, that murder takes away the rights of other people and is, by as objective a measure as we're capable of giving, plain wrong.
The other types of sin are things like shopping on Sunday, taking the Lord's name in vain, not paying tithing, and so on. I've never met a Mormon in my life, nor would I ever expect to, who honestly thinks that they should lobby to pass a law forbidding people from shopping on Sunday. If you're a Mormon, you stay home on Sunday with your family and you reap the benefits that the Lord has promised. You may even try to persuade others to do likewise. But you'd never compel them, physically or legally, to follow your example.
So when MPH says that he thinks gay marriage is wrong, I understand 100%. I even empathize with his point of view, although I may not agree with it. And when he says he doesn't want to explain his views, I both understand what he doesn't want to explain and why he doesn't want to explain it.
But this is only enough to make gay marriage a sin on the level of not paying tithing or shouting "G** D***" when you stub your toe. And for this type of sin, the appropriate response, and the response that is consistent with how Mormons treat every other sin I've ever heard of, is for MPH to not marry a man. Once he's chosen a woman to be his wife and raised his children in a household with a mother and father, his obligation toward this type of sin has ended.
In order for gay marriage to be the type of sin that you'd legislate against, there has to be something more to it. If there isn't a way to explain how gay marriage takes away the rights of others and degrades society as a whole, without using LDS doctrine, it's not the kind of sin you write your congressperson about.
Again, I understand why MPH might not want to, or be able to, convince us that gay marriage is a sin. But I can't imagine any Mormon feeling that way about any other sin they try to make laws against. Do people get really evasive when talking about murder? Do they say that the reasons they oppose burglary are very personal and that they wouldn't be able to make us understand? Do they get offended and defensive when we ask them why they think that even non-Mormons shouldn't be able to rape people?
That's the only thing I don't understand about the anti-SSM crowd. It's fine if you don't believe in it. It's fine if you think it's wrong. It's fine if you'd never do it, and if you'd try to persuade anyone you know not to do it. And I would never ask you to back that up in a debate. But once you get the government involved, getting bashful about your logic no longer works.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just suggest that the exclusively homosexual mindset has its extreme aspects.
It's amazing how many extreme mindsets are found even among people who are legally permitted to marry.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BS, I already pointed out how if Gay marriage becomes a legal fact, insurance companies might cease coverage of fertility treatments they currently cover. It will create a demand for adoption, and there already is a greater demand than supply.
These only affect a few, but it can't be said that no heterosexuals will be inconvenienced.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: no one really has a problem with putting these sorts of God's laws into a secular government-enforcement scenario.
...
In order for gay marriage to be the type of sin that you'd legislate against, there has to be something more to it. If there isn't a way to explain how gay marriage takes away the rights of others and degrades society as a whole, without using LDS doctrine, it's not the kind of sin you write your congressperson about.
There are two ways to legally disadvantage a particular type of marriage. One is to not recognize it legally. This is the current status of same-sex marriage.
The other is to criminalize it. This is the current status of polygamy. We should be very clear what we mean here. I'm not talking about punishing someone who uses the legal process to marry two people at the same time. I'm talking about someone who might or might not be legally married to one spouse living with several others as if they were married.
This is currently a felony in some, maybe most states. When someone speaks of a secular government-enforcement scenario, they usually refer to this kind of sanction, not mere lack of recognition.
It's pretty clear MPH opposes government subsidizing of such marriages, but not at all clear that he wants to use government enforcement against same sex marriage in the way we use it against polygamists.
quote:If gay people can marry then there is no justifiable reason from a civil rights point of view that a Man shouldn't be able to have multiple wives.
BlueWizard, I have a fairly detailed and involved theory on why it's just to deny legal recognition of polygamous unions yet allow legal recognition of same-sex unions. If I get a chance I'll link or post it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It will create a demand for adoption, and there already is a greater demand than supply.
Argument #3. And, no, there is NOT a greater demand than supply. There is a greater demand for cute babies than there is a supply of cute babies, but we have a surplus of children up for adoption. That heterosexual couples who wish to adopt might actually wind up picking a child who in the current climate is "backlogged" is not something I consider a downside.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's pretty clear MPH opposes government subsidizing of such marriages, but not at all clear that he wants to use government enforcement against same sex marriage in the way we use it against polygamists.
It doesn't concern me whether he wants to stop it from happening by criminalizing it or by making it impossible through a constitutional redefinition of terms. If he's using the government to keep something from happening, it's left his house and his church and entered the realm of public policy. And he needs something to back that up.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: BS, I already pointed out how if Gay marriage becomes a legal fact, insurance companies might cease coverage of fertility treatments they currently cover.
Engage in conjecture much? How about this? If we don't allow gay people to marry other gay people, we might get gay men marrying lesbians. And since we all know that gay men are fitter and more organized than straight men, and gay women are tougher and meaner than straight women, once they start breeding together, they might combine these genes and raise up an army of super-human gay warriors that rounds up all us weak and lazy straight folks, puts us in a camp, and makes us marry people of our own gender for their twisted amusement. Beat that, with your fertile imagination.
quote:Originally posted by pooka: These only affect a few, but it can't be said that no heterosexuals will be inconvenienced.
Oh, is that what President Hinckley was referring to when he spoke of "...the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." Thus saith Isaiah, if thou wilt not forsake thy sinful ways, a few heterosexuals might be inconvenienced.
That being said, it is nice to finally hear some sort of concrete impact to SSM. Even if I don't agree with it, it feels good to have something I can consider. Cheers. Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If he's using the government to keep something from happening...
Technically, he's trying to prevent people from using the government to make something happen.
And the way he's trying to prevent that is by passing a constitutional amendment. It's a pretty long and involved process, and if nothing that happens during that time can be considered to be "using the government", I'd really like to know who he is planning on using to make it happen.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:And the way he's trying to prevent that is by passing a constitutional amendment. It's a pretty long and involved process, and if nothing that happens during that time can be considered to be "using the government", I'd really like to know who he is planning on using to make it happen.
You're missing my point entirely. He's not (or at least he hasn't in this thread) proposed the criminalization of two people living as a committed couple or performing any kind of personal ceremony they wish.
He's denying government recognition of their union, not preventing it.
Compare this to what happens to polygamists: they get thrown in jail.
It's the difference between not giving someone a subsidized housing loan and confiscating their house when they borrow money from a bank.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
