quote:Originally posted by pooka: 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.
That doesn't follow. It isn't a matter of it being true or false, pooka, it's simply that you're saying "If A, then either B or C", and it does not follow that either B or C necessarily follow from A.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| 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. 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.
It would really be lovely if you could just say: "I'm against gay marriage, and I'm going to find anything, however small, that might be used to support it, but the bottom line is, I'm against it, and even if I couldn't find a single thing to justify that opposition, I'd still be against it."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: 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.
I've never said that there is "no psychological difference between men and women". However, I do not think that any of the differences hold true for all men or all women. I think of any psychological trait you can name, there will be both men and women who exhibit that trait, even if that same trait is overwhelmingly present in one sex and only present in a minority of the opposite. (Though I also suspect there are very few, if any, traits so blatantly gender specific. Rather most would just follow general trends.)
As for your two possibilities, I imagine a lot of "attraction" is purely physical. Hopefully those whose attraction is purely and solely physical will take a cold shower or otherwise clear their heads before getting married, though lord knows straight people haven't always shown such restraint, so gay people can hardly be required to do better.
Additionally, I don't doubt that many gay people could find themselves attracted to a member of the opposite sex. Whether that attraction is enough to sustain a life-long commitment is really a case-by-case judgement call neither you nor I are qualified to make. But let me pose this question: If a man is sexually attracted to a strong, indepentent, stereotypicall "masculine" woman with a flat chest and is really turned on by a fuzzy lip and hairy legs, would you call him a latent homosexual? I wouldn't. On the other hand, I've seen photos of female-to-male transsexuals that were absolutely HOT. If I met one and they had a fantastic personality, I could conceivably fall in love with one before finding out that she didn't have a normally functional penis. I hope that I'm not so shallow that this discovery (in due course) wouldn't be a sole determining factor in whether or not I continued the relationship. Does this fact alone mean I'm latently straight? Does it mean that, well, if I could in this rare scenario, actually have a relationship with a biological woman, that I should be forced to by society? I think not.
And I'd appreciate it if you'd define terms like "exclusive homosexual mindset". I have a sneaking suspicion it carries with it a lot of straw man baggage. IMHO.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even know if there's really such thing as an exclusively heterosexual mindset, honestly. I also think that a lot of the traits we associate with men and women are learned. Girls play house, boys play...whatever boys play...
Screw you guys. I played Giant Insects Attacking a Tiny Miniature Planet that Everybody Was Supposed to Be Colonizing After Being Shrunk.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 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.
Here's what I said when you made that exact same argument last time, in case you missed it:
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.
Off to work. Bye.
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. 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.
It would really be lovely if you could just say: "I'm against gay marriage, and I'm going to find anything, however small, that might be used to support it, but the bottom line is, I'm against it, and even if I couldn't find a single thing to justify that opposition, I'd still be against it."
It would really be lovely if you could, for once, pretend that you are capable of having a civil discussion.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's what I said when you made that exact same argument last time, in case you missed it:
Perhaps instead of simply repeating yourself verbatim, you could attempt to explain your point further.
I attempted to explain what I meant in other words. You copied and pasted. And you wonder why people might be convinced you are not engaging in this discussion in good faith?
quote: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.
Once again (but in other words in the hopes that you might engage in discussion):
What is the "it" he is trying to stop from happening here? There are two "its" at issue: 1) the right to live with a person of the same sex in a committed, sexual relationship. 2.) the right to have that relationship recognized by the government.
I have given a concrete example of how the two its operate in this country.
You, twice now, have responded to that comparison by conflating them into a single it. Until your response even acknowledges that I was talking about two different things, you haven't responded to my point.
That's fine. You don't have to respond to my point. But your snotty little repostings don't actually mean you've said anything relevant, either.
quote:And he needs something to back that up.
Unfortunately for you, he is not required to share whatever that something is with you. Now that you've shown yourself incapable of respecting his wishes in that regard, it is unlikely he's ever going to attempt to discuss it with you again.
It would behoove you to remember that, in this country, the people in the majority have ways of enacting their policy choices into law. If you wish those policy choices to not become law, the burden is on you to convince them.
Attempting to call people out on the carpet isn't going to get that done.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't even know if there's really such thing as an exclusively heterosexual mindset, honestly. I also think that a lot of the traits we associate with men and women are learned. Girls play house, boys play...whatever boys play...
I don't know. Sure there is some of it, but some things I think are inherent and we're just born with them. Of course no one can solve the nature/nurture argument here, but still.
For example, I have boy/girl twins. To keep my sanity, I raised them as close together as possible, they ate at the same time, slept at the same time, wore the same clothes (sure I had some gender-specific, but I bought mostly gender-neutral clothes to simplify my life), played with the same toys. And yet, there was a difference between the two right away and always has been. When my brother gave my son a toddler baseball set when they were about 15 months old, Daniel took the bat and tried to hit people with it, when I told him no and he set it down, Abigail picked it up and tried to use it to brush her hair. Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of people don't realize how they react differently to boys and girls. They often think they're treating them completely the same, and then decide that their different behavior must reflect something inborn.
My partner and I were at a pizza place with our daughter when she was about 2. Or maybe not even 2. She was a bald baby, and it took a while before she started having a lot of hair. At the time, her hair was fairly short. She was wearing a dress, but she was sitting down in a booth, so you couldn't really see it that well.
This guy came over when he saw us and started talking to Tova: "What a big boy! Hey, there, slugger." That sort of thing. My partner pointed out that she was a girl, and without blinking, and apparently without even noticing what he was doing, he just shifted gears to, "What a pretty little girl! Aren't you the sweetest!"
It's just the way our culture tends to do things. That's not to say that there aren't inborn traits. Tova has been a fiend for pink and lace all her life, and neither one of us has the first clue where that came from.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But studies show differences even in infants. If you look at how long a baby stares at an image, girls stare at faces longer, boys at mobiles. This is in like babies under 6 months old, so pretty much all they are capable of doing is choose what to look at.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: But studies show differences even in infants. If you look at how long a baby stares at an image, girls stare at faces longer, boys at mobiles. This is in like babies under 6 months old, so pretty much all they are capable of doing is choose what to look at.
It's entirely possible that people treat girls and boys differently from birth. Maybe girls are fussed over more.
When I was very little, I only wanted to play with toy cars and rocks and climb trees and whatnot.
They see same sex marriage as a fundamental redefinition of the institution of marriage that drives it away from the fundamental purpose of the institution.
I'm not being obnoxious, I just want to know:
A) What is the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage, as you see it?
B) What is wrong with redefining it?
Posts: 155 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholar, regardless of how much is innate, there is so much that society puts onto people that you'll never truly know how much is which.
Posts: 2867 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
They see same sex marriage as a fundamental redefinition of the institution of marriage that drives it away from the fundamental purpose of the institution.
I'm not being obnoxious, I just want to know:
A) What is the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage, as you see it?
B) What is wrong with redefining it?
You need to ask someone who opposes changing the laws. I won't speak for them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: But studies show differences even in infants. If you look at how long a baby stares at an image, girls stare at faces longer, boys at mobiles. This is in like babies under 6 months old, so pretty much all they are capable of doing is choose what to look at.
I strongly suspect that in such studies this is still just a general trend. Even if the percentage of boys who preferred mobiles was a striking 85%, that would also mean that 15% of boys looked longer at faces. If you can point to such studies and show that they prove me wrong in this guess, please do so. And if I'm right, what would this mean? Are the 15% abnormal? Should we screen them for some disease because they don't hold to "natural" gender-specific behavior? Or is it more likely that it's totally natural that there be some percentage of each gender that doesn't hold to the general trends of that gender? (Or even that no one holds to all the general trends of their own gender?)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:A) What is the fundamental purpose of the institution of marriage, as you see it?
B) What is wrong with redefining it?
I won't touch the "fundamental purpose" but the problem is that marriage confers automatic rights on couples that are not available to others who are in committed relationships. GOVERNMENT's definition of marriage includes those things.
Redefining marriage without solving this broader issue is, to my way of thinking, a mistake.
It would enshrine in the Constitution a part of the current situation which feels discriminatory to me, without at the same time doing something to address that inequality.
And that, to me, is where the mistake lies. I have no problem with people not being ready for gay marriage. What I have a problem with is what I see as unequal treatment built into our laws.
I just see this ammendment as: 1) not solving anything 2) addressing one-half of a current social problem 3) leaving the part of the problem that has much larger implications to us as society completely unresolved.
If this ammendment passes, I believe it will be one of those things that prove an embarrassment to future generations and has to be repealed.
Mainly because whatever else it does, it does one thing that I think is very bad for us as a country -- and that is setting up situation in which a group of people does not have the same rights and privileges as everyone else.
If we legally eliminated the civil benefits of marriage from our laws, this would not be a problem. Nor would it be a problem if we created civil unions open to anyone.
But to leave the benefits of marriage intact and then ammend the constitution to limit who CAN marry, that sets up an inequality I think we're going to regret.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just think there are SOME times and some issues in this society that we should force ourselves to deal with all sides of an issue before moving forward.
When it comes to relatively permanent changes like this (making a Constitutional ammendment), I think the onus is on the people wanting to make that change to prove that there aren't undesired effects on any identifiable portion of our population BEFORE proceeding.
And by undesired, I mean specifically setting up situations that are not in the spirit of the remainder of our constitution.
quote:I think the onus is on the people wanting to make that change to prove that there aren't undesired effects on any identifiable portion of our population BEFORE proceeding.
I agree.
In this case, though, I think the state legislatures are already lined up to approve this. Which means that, at this point, the burden is on those opposing it to change others' minds.
I do think a lot of this stems from the distaste over having had the abortion issue "settled" by the courts. I see the amendment as a preemptive strike against judicially-implemented change.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey dudes. Loads of overtime, but I do have a couple minutes this morning.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Once again (but in other words in the hopes that you might engage in discussion):
What is the "it" he is trying to stop from happening here? There are two "its" at issue: 1) the right to live with a person of the same sex in a committed, sexual relationship. 2.) the right to have that relationship recognized by the government.
I have given a concrete example of how the two its operate in this country.
You, twice now, have responded to that comparison by conflating them into a single it. Until your response even acknowledges that I was talking about two different things, you haven't responded to my point.
That's fine. You don't have to respond to my point. But your snotty little repostings don't actually mean you've said anything relevant, either.
Which "it" is this constitutional amendment going to prevent? That's the "it" to which I was referring.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Unfortunately for you, he is not required to share whatever that something is with you. Now that you've shown yourself incapable of respecting his wishes in that regard, it is unlikely he's ever going to attempt to discuss it with you again.
When you say required, if you mean that there's no law compelling him to tell me these things, I realize that. I'm not even going to try to amend the constitution to make him explain his reasons to me.
When I said there has to be something more, I was referring to consistency in his beliefs. Of course, he can believe whatever he wants, and he can vote however he wants. But if he votes for this amendment without being able to explain it in non-doctrinal terms, he's removing his belief system from the realm of traditional non-intrusive Christianity and entering the camp of the radical Shi'a Muslims who gave the Ayatollah Khomeini the power to force women to wear burqas on the street. If he votes for this, without a better explaination, it's no better than trying to enact a law compelling people to pay tithing or making all business licenses void on Sunday.
There's a Christian principle of non-interference with purely secular laws. It goes along with the "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" idea. It's a good principle, and one that Christianity has not always followed. But when they have, it has helped them, morally if nothing else. Mormonism has historically been remarkably good about following this principle, and it's one of the most admirable thing about the religion. This amendment, based upon the way it's been defended in this thread, seems the exact sort of things that Mormons would have traditionally steered clear of. Gay people are trying to avail themselves of a strictly secular rite, and one that does absolutely nothing to their position in the LDS church. No one is proposing the idea that the church should be forced to marry gay people in the temple, or stop thinking of their union as sinful. They're just giving these people rights in institutions that the LDS church has never even aspired to take part in.
Once Mormons take legal action regarding this based on nothing other than doctrinal beliefs they're radically re-defining who they are as a church and as members of society. If they don't want to leave their position as some of the most tolerant and respectful people on Earth and join the ranks of religious dictators, there has to be something non-doctrinally explainable in MPH's position.
Of course, if he does want to make this shift, that's his choice too, and he has all the rights that the Constitution grants him in this respect.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You need to ask someone who opposes changing the laws. I won't speak for them.
That was meant ironically, right?
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Which "it" is this constitutional amendment going to prevent? That's the "it" to which I was referring.
Yes, but that "it" can't be accomplished through criminal means, making your statement that you don't care if "it" is done through criminal law or constitutional amendment nonsensical.
You still haven't acknowledged the distinction between the two acts. Not surprising, really.
quote:When I said there has to be something more, I was referring to consistency in his beliefs. Of course, he can believe whatever he wants, and he can vote however he wants. But if he votes for this amendment without being able to explain it in non-doctrinal terms, he's removing his belief system from the realm of traditional non-intrusive Christianity and entering the camp of the radical Shi'a Muslims who gave the Ayatollah Khomeini the power to force women to wear burqas on the street. If he votes for this, without a better explaination, it's no better than trying to enact a law compelling people to pay tithing or making all business licenses void on Sunday.
...
there has to be something non-doctrinally explainable in MPH's position.
And he's still not required to share that with you. He's already states that he believes that the secular effects of allowing same-sex civil marriage will be bad in a secular manner.
You could be considerate enough to take him at his word in that instead of drawing comparisons to burqa compulsion.
quote:That was meant ironically, right?
It's not surprising to me that you can't see the difference between stating what their beliefs are and coming to their defense when badgered. Someone who could see the difference strikes me as someone less likely to do the badgering.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There's a Christian principle of non-interference with purely secular laws. It goes along with the "render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" idea. It's a good principle, and one that Christianity has not always followed. But when they have, it has helped them, morally if nothing else. Mormonism has historically been remarkably good about following this principle, and it's one of the most admirable thing about the religion. This amendment, based upon the way it's been defended in this thread, seems the exact sort of things that Mormons would have traditionally steered clear of. Gay people are trying to avail themselves of a strictly secular rite, and one that does absolutely nothing to their position in the LDS church. No one is proposing the idea that the church should be forced to marry gay people in the temple, or stop thinking of their union as sinful. They're just giving these people rights in institutions that the LDS church has never even aspired to take part in.
Once Mormons take legal action regarding this based on nothing other than doctrinal beliefs they're radically re-defining who they are as a church and as members of society. If they don't want to leave their position as some of the most tolerant and respectful people on Earth and join the ranks of religious dictators, there has to be something non-doctrinally explainable in MPH's position.
I can't speak for the "Christian Principle" you speak of, except to say I don't think it's universally applied by Christians in the way you apply it here. The rest of this quote shows a profound misunderstanding of the Mormon view of the role of The Church in secular government.
The LDS church has always used its influence to fight in political issues that it deems important to the strength of communities. One huge area has been in fighting against measures to allow gambling and the lottery in places that previously don't/didn't have it.
Indeed, it could be argued that to many LDS, there is nothing that is "purely secular" since everything we do and everything we fight for has direct bearing on our worthiness for God's blessings. (Any currently active LDS feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).
Also, to what antecedent is the pronoun "their" referring in the following quote:
quote:Gay people are trying to avail themselves of a strictly secular rite, and one that does absolutely nothing to their position in the LDS church.
If it's "Gays" you're flat out wrong. If it's "Mormons" (which your sentence really doesn't make clear), I take it to mean you are saying being against this amendment doesn't affect a Mormon's standing in the church. That's probably true in that the LDS church rarely if ever disciplines people for their personal political opinions. However, no Mormon who understands his religion believes that they will not be held accountable by God for their actions (or inactions) simply because they are political.
posted
I am enjoying this discussion. I am butting in. Watch out, here I come.
quote:Yes, but that "it" can't be accomplished through criminal means, making your statement that you don't care if "it" is done through criminal law or constitutional amendment nonsensical.
You still haven't acknowledged the distinction between the two acts. Not surprising, really.
I'm sorry, Dagonee, but in my totally unbiased, lawyerly trained and prenaturally fair judgement, Baron Samedi is right. The distinction you want him to acknowledge is irrelevant to his point. His point, as I understand it, is that, in his opinion, ANY public policy must be defensible on grounds other than religious dogma. If the policy change attempted is to enshrine a specific definition of marriage in the constitution or criminalizing SSM in statutory law is entirely irrelevant.
quote:And he's still not required to share that with you. He's already states that he believes that the secular effects of allowing same-sex civil marriage will be bad in a secular manner.
Naturally mr_porteiro_head is required to share exactly whatever he wishes on Hatrack, and not a syllable more. Indeed, he seems to have exercised his priveledge to bow out of this discussion. And I am morally certain that the good Baron agrees with me that it is mr_porteiro_head's right to do so.
However, as a matter of general principle, I believe it is right to put pressure on opponents of SSM on this point in any public debate on the subject. It is NOT enough to state that one believes "the secular effects of allowing same-sex civil marriage will be bad in a secular manner". Unless these general evils are concretisized in some way it is not possible to evaluate (or refute) them in a rational manner.
The general inability or unwillingness by SSM opponents to give concrete examples of the negative consequences that may come along with SSM goes a long way to suggest the weakness of their position.
P.S. to avoid unnecessary arguments I wish to emphasise that I do not "require" mr_porteiro_head, or any other specific SSM opponent, to provide such secular arguments asked for above and that I am fully aware of the fact that Dagonee suports (civil) SSM and is in no way, shape or form obligated to provide a defence on a position that he does not hold (or, for that matter, defend any position he does hold, is sympathetic to, or may conceivably hold in the future).
Posts: 896 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry, Dagonee, but in my totally unbiased, lawyerly trained and prenaturally fair judgement, Baron Samedi is right. The distinction you want him to acknowledge is irrelevant to his point. His point, as I understand it, is that, in his opinion, ANY public policy must be defensible on grounds other than religious dogma. If the policy change attempted is to enshrine a specific definition of marriage in the constitution or criminalizing SSM in statutory law is entirely irrelevant.
However, the type of harm to be prevented and the level of harm is very relevant to deciding whether a particular group is entitled to receive a particular government benefit.
A much higher level of harm must be shown in order to criminalize something than to provide a benefit to one group but not another. And that is totally relevant to this conversation.
It'd be one thing for BS to say, "MPH hasn't shown sufficient harm for either type of restriction." It's another thing to continually refuse to acknowledge that the distinction exists.
quote:However, as a matter of general principle, I believe it is right to put pressure on opponents of SSM on this point in any public debate on the subject. It is NOT enough to state that one believes "the secular effects of allowing same-sex civil marriage will be bad in a secular manner". Unless these general evils are concretisized in some way it is not possible to evaluate (or refute) them in a rational manner.
Fine, but as a matter of general principle, it is rude and demonstrates a lack of good faith in the discussion to repeatedly misstate someone's position after explicit statements from that person that the misstatement is, in fact, incorrect.
quote:However, no Mormon who understands his religion believes that they will not be held accountable by God for their actions (or inactions) simply because they are political.
This is a very good point, Karl, and not restricted to Mormons (although I recognize you were responding to a specific example and weren't saying it was so restricted). Believe me, I struggled greatly with this issue. I very early on decided that criminal sanctions against truly consensual, private sexual conduct between two adults. This presented no challenge to me religiously.
Supporting same sex civil marriage required me to think very deeply about the two different institutions at issue here. Had this reasoning process been explicated fully here during it's development (which predated both my arrival at the 'Rack and law school), I'm sure some people would have considered it highly semantical and legalistic. But one issue involved was definitely my accountability for my political beliefs.
By the way, this is directly relevant to why I think the distinction between criminalizing and failure to recognize is CRITICAL to any attempt to resolve this issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholar: But studies show differences even in infants. If you look at how long a baby stares at an image, girls stare at faces longer, boys at mobiles. This is in like babies under 6 months old, so pretty much all they are capable of doing is choose what to look at.
I strongly suspect that in such studies this is still just a general trend. Even if the percentage of boys who preferred mobiles was a striking 85%, that would also mean that 15% of boys looked longer at faces. If you can point to such studies and show that they prove me wrong in this guess, please do so. And if I'm right, what would this mean? Are the 15% abnormal? Should we screen them for some disease because they don't hold to "natural" gender-specific behavior? Or is it more likely that it's totally natural that there be some percentage of each gender that doesn't hold to the general trends of that gender? (Or even that no one holds to all the general trends of their own gender?)
All life exists within ranges, with extremes at both ends. There are very few arguments where I don't believe nature and nurture work together. From the argument, it seemed like people want to deny that the nature aspect of gender (except for physiologically). I don't think you can do that and have a fair representation of what if going on.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You (all, in general) can argue the theology, morality, and semantics all you want, but in the end, as I've said many times before, this comes down to an issue of Law and Civil Rights, nothing more.
Someone pointed out that we are dealing with a two part argument-
1.) the right of two people to live together in a commited relationship.
2.) the right of those two people to have that relationship recognised by the Government.
Well, of course, there is nothing to prevent the first item from happening. Of course, many people will take moral issue with it, but your view of morality does not dictate the actions of other people, and morality is not for the government to decide.
I doubt that anyone here who supports Same Sex Marriage is saying the various religions and churches should be in any way compelled to believe or do anything. If you think gay people are immoral, then more power to you. But, you have to accept that your personal belief of what is and isn't immoral can't be used to deny civil rights to any one group while allowing those same civil rights to a very similar group living under very similar circumstances.
Every issue in question here is a legal issue (insurance, medical decisions, inheritance, etc...), that is, every issue with respect to changing the Constitution, and granting or denying legal rights to same sex couples.
You are free to hold your own personal and religious beliefs, but accept that those personal and religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law or civil rights in a free country.
You and your church may choose to oppose and refuse to sanction same sex marriage and you are within your rights to do so, just as the Catholic Church is free to view divorce in a different light than the law. Should we let the Catholic Church's view dictate all divorce law in the USA, even when those views go against other religions and other beliefs systems; I don't think so.
Further, while you and your church many not recognise, sanction, or sanctify gay marriage, you must also accept that many many churches WILL. In fact, many many churches DO, but are currently restricted by law.
The fact that this issue is not cut and dried, the fact that Gay Marriage has been proposed in many states and countries, and that it has been enacted in several, should tell us that this is an issue that is open to debate, and isn't even remotely clear enough to be enshrined in the Constitution.
Lastly, several political analysts have said the the Constitutional Ammendment doesn't stand a chance of passing and every member of Congress knows it. The only reason the suggestion exists is to gain the favor and votes of the Religious Right. There is no real intention to enact anything here, it is simply a political ploy, made for politicaal gain.
Yes, you are all more than free to argue and discuss the various religious and moral aspects of the issue, just a long as you remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ...morality is not for the government to decide. ...remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
I utterly reject this premise. I believe every law is moral at its base. Saying my religious views cannot inform how I approach an issue is exactly equivalent (IMO) to me stating that your (presumably non-religious) sense of right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical should not affect your vote. Your morality informs how you vote; why should I be denied equal priviledge, simply on the basis that my morality is (primarily) religiously derived? You have values, I have values, they conflict; to me, adjudicating that conflict is exactly what the legislative and democratic process is all about.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should we let the Catholic Church's view dictate all divorce law in the USA, even when those views go against other religions and other beliefs systems; I don't think so.
If the majority of voters in the United States were Catholic, I would definitely expect that to have a major impact in divorce laws, the legality of abortion, and a whole slew of other laws. I don't see anything wrong with that.
quote:Yes, you are all more than free to argue and discuss the various religious and moral aspects of the issue, just a long as you remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
It is the voice of the people, through the framework of the constitution, who determine the laws in the USA. The religious views of those people and always have affected how they vote. This is not going to change.
If anybody expects me to set aside my opinions and views which are considered religious when I vote on any subject, you're going to be dissapointed. I will vote according to my conscience, and I won't even try to separate my religion out from that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A long-winded post on the nature of the right at issue, cobbled together from several posts here and elsewhere.
1. There is no right to have a relationship recognized by the government.
When I say "right" here, I am referring simply to the whether a legislature could pass a law that contravenes the right. Here, I think most people would agree that a state could constitutionally pass a law stating "This state will no longer issue marriage licenses. Whether or not two people have an existing marriage license from this or any other state will no longer be relevant to making any determination in law and equity."
2. A brief description of equal protection (or equal treatment by the law).
The essence of equal protection is that distinctions in the law should be meaningful and of good purpose. For example, explicit distinctions based on race are treated very suspiciously. Without a compelling government interest and a race-based distinction narrowly tailored to meet that interest, they just flat out aren't allowed. Most people are familiar with this aspect of equal protection, if not the specific jargon.
What many don't appreciate is that the law is full of distinctions. Every single law makes a distinction. Some of these distinctions are based on natural characteristics. Some are based on actions taken by particular people. For example, we don't allow people who are 3 to marry. We fine people based on how fast they drive. Some people go to jail and some don't - based on their behavior and the result of a trial.
Most people know this, but don't think of these distinctions as implicating the equal protection clause. But, every such distinction is technically reviewable by those who suffer injury due to it. The standard of review is called "rational basis," and it means that if a judge can think of a rational reason that the policy serves a legitimate state interest, it will be allowed.
Just knowing that standard makes the equal protection validity of those examples clear. 3 yar olds can't consent to marriage, speeders are dangerous, and people who commit crimes need to be punished/deterred/incapcaitated/rehabilitated.
Some distinctions, however, we distrust inherently. We assume they never serve a good purpose and require the government to prove their legitimate purpose AND necessity before allowing them. Race is the paradigm example.
3. An example of the difference between a right to something and a right to have something provided on an equal basis.
If our government creates gov't subsidized loans for first time homebuyers, it has made a distinction between people who own homes and want to buy them, people who already own homes but want to buy new ones, and people who want to borrow money to buy a boat.
These are valid distinctions when you consider the statistics that demonstrate that the first purchase of a home has the biggest effect on economic stability of almost any factor except education.
If we were to modify the policy so that only homebuyers who were over 5'7" tall could obtain the loans, we would consider that to be a violation of the civil right of equal protection, because the distinction has no rational connection to any legitimate government purpose. We would not say that the civil right to a government subsidized loan has been violated because there is no such right. However, there is a right to not be subject to distinctions which bear no rational basis to the policy being implemented. Such a case would be decided under the 14th amendment equal protection clause, which is simply the shorthand we use for claims of this type.
4. The equal protection clause of the federal constitution does not require granting access to to civil marriage to same sex couples.
As we have seen, there is no right to government recognition of civil marriage. There is a right to not have the provision of a generally offered government benefit be based on distinctions which bear no rational relation to the policy. We group this right under the term "equal protection." (You'll have to take my word on that for now.)
I strongly believe that the justification for the benefits we extend to married couples are justified by the reproductive capacity represented by most male/female adult pairs and the benefits to children and society that come from encouraging a stable structure.
One of the ways in which rational relationship to purpose is tested is by hypothetically modifying the policy to remove the distinction and seeing how it would meet the policy goals as well as the original policy with the distinction. Would removing the distinction hinder the goal? Would it serve the goal? Or would it have no effect on the goal? Call the first question a demonstration of inconvenience if answered "yes."
When the court looks at these questions, it's looking to see if a case can rationally be made that removing the distinction would harm the goal. If so, then the law will be upheld, even if a better case can be made that removing the distinction would serve the law. However, the law will also be upheld even if no rational case can be made that removing the distinction would harm the goal, as long as a rational case can be made that it wouldn't further the goal, either (i.e., answering yes to the third question). This is because it is legislature's job to allocate resources. If the payoff to society of extending marital privileges and benefits to same-sex couples is less than the payoff of extending them to mixed-sex couples, then the legislature is allowed to decide that spending resources in this manner is not worth it to society.
My contention is that the distinction of mixed gender does bear a rational relationship to the purpose of marriage because that purpose relates to the creation of family units for the rearing of children produced by the couple being married. The payoff to society is less for couples that will definitely not produce offspring between them, even if we merely value that contribution based on the likelihood of caring for children. I think that it is therefore constitutional for the legislature to make the cost-benefit analysis and decline to extend the benefits to same sex couples.
5. Anticipatory responses to a few objections.
a. The original purpose of marriage isn't related to procreation. Even if this statement is true, the standard is not what the purpose was when enacted, but whether the purpose is one that could be attributed to the policy.
b. We let people who can’t reproduce get married. True. However, policies can be over- and under- inclusive, as long as the distinction can serve as a proxy. We could either require all couples seeking marriage to obtain a fertility test, or use mixed gender as a convenient proxy. We don't allow a brother and sister who are raising a deceased sibling's children to marry or receive marriage benefits. We allow sterile couples to marry. This is because the rules we have for marital eligibility are a proxy for what's being accomplished.
6. Although the equal protection clause does not require providing same-sex couples access to civil marriage, the principles that inform the equal protection clause strongly argue favor in favor of doing so.
I have never been one to believe that all things a government should do are things that it constitutionally must do. We have a legal institution aimed at helping couples who are producing child in the most common way. Changes to that institution that will hurt it should not be made. Benefits similar to those provided by the institution of legal marriage do not have to (constitutionally) be provided to people who desire a different form of family unit.
However, where we can provide the benefits to people for essentially zero cost, it is proper to do so, especially when there are other likely societal benefits that might arise. For reasons I’ve outlined in other posts, I think the cost-benefit ratio tips in the direction of supporting SSM on a policy, not constitutional basis. Heterosexual couples have no right to government recognition of their marriages. However, government gives us many things that we don't have a right to, because we judge the giving of those things to be beneficial to society.
Any inequity that exists because of lack of SSM derives from the fact that we could provide same sex couples with a significant civil benefit (not right) without interfering with the purpose of the institution from which the benefits derive.
7. The difference between same-sex civil marriage and civil polygamy.
There are two possible ways to recognize polygamy.
1.) Create a new legal institution called poly-marriage that has unique rules suited to polygamous relationships.
2.) Modify the existing relationship by simply removing the distinction we currently have of "two people."
The first is easily dealt with: if it's a new legal entity being made, then the polygamist claimants will not be receiving the same benefit. They will be receiving a different benefit. And (this is terribly legalistic, I know, but I do think it's an important distinction), therefore, there is no equal protection violation based on denying a particular government benefit to a group based on a distinction.
The second is also easily dealt with. Someone suggested searching and replacing "man" and "woman" (and their plurals and alternate forms) with "person" or "persons" in order to implement same sex marriage. There is only one current legal doctrine that I am aware of would be rendered nonsensical by such a claim, the presumption of paternity, and I think it's easily modified to avoid problems by extending an existing exception to that presumption to cover same-sex couples.
However, there is no such easy substitution for polygamist marriages, simply because there are many, many doctrines that rely on their only being one other spouse. For example, suppose there is a doctrine, "In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of the wishes of a married patient as to the maintenance of life support in the case of terminal illness, the decision to maintain or remove life support shall be made by the patient's spouse."*
What do we do? Majority rule of the other spouses? The spouse with longest tenure? Both methods seem to have reasonable policy explanations underlying them. It requires someone to make a policy judgment to modify this rule. And this is merely one rule of hundreds. Some of these rules are about property, which can be divided. Some are about decisions which can't really be divided. The cost of implementation is enormous, and it's possible that some of the choices would make adjudicating individual issues concerning two-person marriage more complicated.
*This is not the actual statement of any particular rule, but it is a fair representation of the type of rules I'm talking about.
quote:If the majority of voters in the United States were Catholic, I would definitely expect that to have a major impact in divorce laws, the legality of abortion, and a whole slew of other laws. I don't see anything wrong with that.
Why not? It completely negates separation of church and state and freedom of religion.
quote:Why not? It completely negates separation of church and state and freedom of religion.
No, it doesn't. There's nothing magical about the divorce laws we have now - some states make it much easier than others to get divorce. If the populace is expressing their will about how difficult it should be to get a divorce, then people who think divorce should be harder to get - for whatever reason - have just as much right to be heard and exert political influence as those who wish to make it easier to get a divorce.
Not all those opposing easing of divorce requirements will do so for religious reasons. Fortunately, we don't ask voters to declare that they aren't allowing "improper" influences to affect their votes.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Should we let the Catholic Church's view dictate all divorce law in the USA, even when those views go against other religions and other beliefs systems; I don't think so.
If the majority of voters in the United States were Catholic, I would definitely expect that to have a major impact in divorce laws, the legality of abortion, and a whole slew of other laws. I don't see anything wrong with that.
This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
People who think that they have the right to push their religious views on members of other religions needn't complain when it turns on them.
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: You (all, in general) can argue the theology, morality, and semantics all you want, but in the end, as I've said many times before, this comes down to an issue of Law and Civil Rights, nothing more.
Someone pointed out that we are dealing with a two part argument-
1.) the right of two people to live together in a commited relationship.
2.) the right of those two people to have that relationship recognised by the Government.
I don't agree. It's the right of those people to be treated equally under the law. That is, there is no right to have that relationship recognized by the government unless the government recognizes that same right for some. In which case, the government is obligated either to cease recognizing it for those some, or extend it equally to all.
I have no problem with the government getting out of the marriage biz completely. But a government founded on the principle of equality of all men before the law is completely out of line if it gives recognition and benefits to one group and excludes another group from the same.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
I disagree.
Freedom of religion is the freedom to woship God as you please, not the freedom to never be affected by the religion of others.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: ...morality is not for the government to decide. ...remember that your religious beliefs do not and should not dictate law in the USA.
I utterly reject this premise. I believe every law is moral at its base. Saying my religious views cannot inform how I approach an issue is exactly equivalent (IMO) to me stating that your (presumably non-religious) sense of right and wrong, good and bad, ethical and unethical should not affect your vote. Your morality informs how you vote; why should I be denied equal priviledge, simply on the basis that my morality is (primarily) religiously derived? You have values, I have values, they conflict; to me, adjudicating that conflict is exactly what the legislative and democratic process is all about.
You misunderstand. All other things being equal, certainly let your religious views inform your decisions. That's not the issue. The issue is when you insist on forcing others to live by your personal religious morality. There's a reason the First Amendment doesn't bar Congress from establishing a language or a flag or the like, but does bar it from establishing a religion.
When you use the power of the law to force other people to live according to your religious views, that is state-established religion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a fine line being discussed though. I'm wary of, but have little objection to people voting some basic religious based morality into law.
Thou shalt not kill is perfectly acceptable to me, as is thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not bear false witness, but I draw the line somewhere around making any of the other commandments into law. The first three make sense because they stretch across all religions, and all secular divides as well. One could argue that adultery does too, but I'm on the fence over legislating that.
There comes a point when you enter the grey area, when your voting your religious doctrine into law violates my secular or other religious right to not have that law violate my personal freedoms.
I would fully expect a religious person to vote their religious based morality into law, but that doesn't mean I always think that vote, even if it is a majority of the people, should always result in a law being made. America was founded on a majority rule, but with respect for minority rights. Even a majority of the people, be they Catholic, Jewish, or whatever, can't vote their morality into law if it significantly hinders the rights of the minority. What is "significantly?" Well, that's for the courts to decide I suppose, and even I couldn't tell you, it's a case by case basis.
But I don't think there is any clear definition, or any clear Yes or No when it comes to doctrine influencing or outright being made into law. It's all one giant grey area.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
sL: correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I recall you using God's promises to the Israelites as a justification for modern Israel's actions?
quote: The issue is when you insist on forcing others to live by your personal religious morality.
I haven't seen anybody try to do that in this thread. Not recognizing SSM is not forcing others to obey any religious tenant.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
I disagree.
Freedom of religion is the freedom to woship God as you please, not the freedom to never be affected by the religion of others.
Semantics. There are religious groups in this country which recognize same-sex marriage. A federal amendment barring state recognition of such marriages interferes with their freedom to practice their religion.
It is, in fact, establishing a particular religious conception of marriage as the law of the land, at the expense of other religious conceptions of marriage.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: sL: correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I recall you using God's promises to the Israelites as a justification for modern Israel's actions?
quote: The issue is when you insist on forcing others to live by your personal religious morality.
I haven't seen anybody try to do that in this thread. Not recognizing SSM is not forcing others to obey any religious tenant.
I get that you think this is the case. But I think you're mistaken.
The state redistributes money to married couples. By doing so for opposite-sex marriages and not for same-sex marriages, it is engaging in punitive activity against same-sex couples. I mean, where do you think those benefits from from in the first place?
When you tell me, "Marry a man, and you can have these goodies. Marry a woman, and we deny them. And all because Christianity says so," you are engaging in coercive acts against me.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: sL: correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I recall you using God's promises to the Israelites as a justification for modern Israel's actions?
And I'm not saying that a state founded as a Christian state would be wrong to ban same-sex marriage. Or divorce. Or pre-marital sex. Or blasphemy. Knock yourself out. Israel is a Jewish state. One founded on the opposite of the establishment clause.
When Christians attempt to change the US into a Christian state, it's wrong. It's essentially an attempted coup d'etat. If Jews were to attempt it, it would be wrong. When Muslims get around to trying it, it'll also be wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's no different than a Constitutional Amendment declaring Christianity to be the official religion of the United States, Dag. Different in details, but no different in principle. That, too, would be an attempt to use the already-agreed-upon procedures for changing the foundational structure of our government. But it would most definitely be a de facto coup d'etat.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if you'd consider it a semantic argument or not, but it wouldn't be a coup d'etat. Coups generally either mean a sudden or unexpected change in government through violent means, or a beheading of the government through unconstitutional means.
If proponents of a Pro-Christian America went through the constitutional process of changing the country into whatever it was that they wanted it wouldnt be a coup, I guess you'd call it a revolution, albeit one of the more peaceful in history, assuming no one stood up to them with armed resistance (which I'd find hard to believe).
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: sL: correct me if I'm wrong, but don't I recall you using God's promises to the Israelites as a justification for modern Israel's actions?
quote: The issue is when you insist on forcing others to live by your personal religious morality.
I haven't seen anybody try to do that in this thread. Not recognizing SSM is not forcing others to obey any religious tenant.
I get that you think this is the case. But I think you're mistaken.
The state redistributes money to married couples. By doing so for opposite-sex marriages and not for same-sex marriages, it is engaging in punitive activity against same-sex couples. I mean, where do you think those benefits from from in the first place?
As Dag pointed out earlier, the fact that the government redistributes money to certain groups does not mean that it is engaging in punative action against people not included in that group. Otherwise, I want my welfare benefits, and free education, and the right to fish without a license dang it!
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This country was founded with one of the ideals being that the existence of a majority of one religion shouldn't have an impact on those who aren't members of that religion.
Actually, it was founded on the ideal of the majority on every issue dictating its impact to the minority. Such is democracy, and provided the majority doesn't want something unconstitutional, there's not much you can do about it, short of moving.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's one good side to this whole amendment nonsense. It's basically establishing that banning same-sex marriage really does require a constitutional amendment. It's just that outrageous.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
