quote:the secular state gives you the rest. Trying to fold those secular rights into religious rights seems utterly silly to me, and I have no idea where it comes from that it needs to be defended as such.
This is a very good point, Lyrhawn.
For my part, I'm not concerned about giving homosexual couples the ability to share insurance benefits (I support nationalized health care for everyone anyway), the right to hospital visits, or the right to make medical decisions for their partner. Adoption of non-biological children DOES bother me a bit; but I believe homosexuals can be as sterling parents as anyone.
Most of those "rights" can be obtained legally by homosexual couples right now. I understand that it's not as convenient as a simple trip to the courthouse.
What does my objection stem from, then? If I'm not opposed to secular "rights" (shared health care, etc) why should I care about a civil union?
It comes back to the idea of supporting, through my vote/non-vote, something that I think is sinful. In the 2004 election, I wrote in my vote for President of the US rather than cast a vote for a man whose ideals I disagree with (Kerry), or for the candidate who had already proved himself untrustworthy (Bush). It wasn't enough to NOT vote at all-- I felt that I had to make an appearance, and raise a small voice against what I felt was immoral governance.
This is similar. I don't believe homosexual unions pose a threat to individual marriages. I do believe that social approbation through legitimization of homosexual unions will make the sin of homosexual behavior more accessible; it will make it more difficult to support, justify, and teach the will of God for family life, because another option is being shown as just as acceptable in wider society.
I DO think that homosexual unions will be nationally recognized in the near future. I think that there's enough cultural, philosophical and legal weight behind the claims to push (or convince) our courts into making the choice to allow homosexual marriage.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I do believe that social approbation through legitimization of homosexual unions will make the sin of homosexual behavior more accessible
This assumes that homosexuality is a choice.
This may have been brought up before, but how does everyone stand on that? I don't want to start a whole new argument, but I'm curious.
If it could be proved that homosexuality was not a choice, would its sinfulness be more, less or the same? Would you be more likely to support (or at least allow) same sex marriage if it were proved that it wasn't a choice?
This is a hypothetical, at least as far as we can prove now. And I know a lot of you hate answering hypotheticals. But humor me, please. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Either answer won't sway the non-supporters on the issue. If it is proven scientifically that homosexuality is not a choice, then those who don't support it will call it a disease (many do already).
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a homosexual, I find the whole "choice" vs "born-that-way" arguement distasteful in the extreme. Why? Because it simply can't be framed in a way that doesn't imply victimhood and "Oh, but we can't help it."
I don't care if I was "born this way", or if other circumstances beyond my control (or not) created the specific combination of thoughts, desires, and feelings that I call "me". The point is that I AM, and what I am deserves equal treatment under law.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think of it, all of this fighting with the religious folk about convincing them to not vote/change their vote is rather pointless.
If you really want to make a difference talk to what I believe to be the true majority. "Heteros" like me who support Gay marriage (or fall in the middle somewhere), but may not want to be bothered to vote in the first place (or in many cases just don't care enough to).
That is the case with a lot of people I talk to. They just don't care. Those are the ones we should be encouraging to vote.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think all of this fighting hasn't been about changing people's votes, it's just about fighting to see who is correct in their beliefs.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not consider this thread to be full of fighting. I can't think of anybody being all that antagonistic. Discussion that leads to understanding is an admirable goal in my mind.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I feel like we're talking past each other. You responded to Squicky's comment about oppressing Mormons by saying it would be justified. This is the issue that concerns me. I do not think it is justified to oppress a group of people period. I would even venture to guess that most people on the no SSM side would agree with this, but they don’t feel that not letting a gay couple get married is oppression. I can understand that reasoning. What I don’t understand is you saying that it’s ok to oppress a group of people, your own group of people specifically, if the majority thinks they’re harmful to society. This sounds like might is right. I understand that sometimes it happens that way despite our efforts to not make it so. The comment that threw me was you describing the action as “justified.” Could you explain how that would be just by your way of thinking?
Scott, I think me and one or two other people asked questions of you within a few posts of each other, making it possibly seem like a dogpile.
Might doesnt MAKE right but in this country at least might is what ends up happening.
The Book of Mormon does a pretty good job describing my feelings on this topic. The scripture describes the state of affairs for a group of people who also believed in democratically selecting their judges, but the judges were able to act independantly of the people, and could only be impeached by a group of lower judges.
Helaman 5:2 "2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted."
Incidentally the chief judge steps down rather then trying to fight the voice of the mob and goes himself amongst the people trying to persuade them to turn back to righteousness. He didn't say "Well the evil people ought not to vote" or "I'm going to legislate my own opinion and make it stick because the tyranny of the majority must be stopped."
If the voice of the people wants gay marriage, I will certainly abide by that. I am a part of the voice of the people, and my particular feelings lean towards discouraging patterns of behavior that I find incorrect. Or at the very least discouraging the government from cultivating them.
I only ask that I be allowed to disagree with homosexuality and to be allowed to vote accordingly.
But perhaps its pointless that I post anyway seeing as how I am not commited to any course of action. I just think that for me you will get further discussing with me why homosexuality is not wrong, or will not in any excessive way harm anybody, rather then telling me I ought not to vote as I believe.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just think that for me you will get further discussing with me why homosexuality is not wrong, or will not in any excessive way harm anybody...
Are those two requests equivalent?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just think that for me you will get further discussing with me why homosexuality is not wrong, or will not in any excessive way harm anybody, rather then telling me I ought not to vote as I believe.
Where have I told you, or anybody else, to not vote as you believe? I have not said that and I do not believe that. In fact, I don't think I've even discussed homosexuality with you. I've tried to discuss your comments about it being just to oppress people, but to no avail.
Your scriptural reference only confuses me further. The person that you herald did not use the law to try and force his view on others. Instead, he tried to convince them personally. I fail to see the connection between that and the justice of oppression.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm curious though, do you support Anti-Gay legislation because it is a discouragement to homosexuality, or do you do it because you think God's law should be made into public law? Do you support more Biblical Law (or God's Law) being made into national public law instead of the current secular system we have in place?
Also, and this is just me being curious, you have to realize that not allowing same sex unions isn't going to dissuade anyone from being gay if they are already. All it does is force them to live their life in less happiness than they otherwise would have had. So, either you don't believe that, and you really think that not allow SSM is going to turn gay people straight (hasn't really worked well in the last couple hundred years, to say nothing of the last three decades), or you think it is okay to punish these people for their beliefs. Where does the Bible come down on persecution?
And for Dag -
What would happen if there was a religion in the US that supported same sex marriages? Say Catholicism did an about face and it's okay now (yeah I know, NEVER in a million years), but all of a sudden gay Catholics can get married. Does the Constitution guarantee them the right do to so legally? Would laws that make it impossible for them to do so count as religious persecution?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: No they are not, they are two seperate points.
Amanecer: Sorry I sorta responded to you but melded the post to address what some people were saying in the first few pages of this thread. I should have clarified where I was speaking to you.
The scriptural reference is valid as the judge recognized that the will of the people prevailed and so he went amongst them seeking to change opinions. As I said before he didn't tell the evil people they had no right to vote their opinions. But its also useful in that it articulates again my belief that the will of the people does prevail, not that the will of the people is always right, but I just do not think there is any perfect way to have a democracy but check the people when they want something that is bad. I accept the reality of the situation in that my feelings do not always become law, but sometimes they do, and in direct opposition to other who disagree with me. Americans as a whole are good enough that I feel comfortable allowing the masses to have a say in how I live.
If God himself ruled, that would be best.
If righteous men were always the kings, monarchies would be 2nd best.
Since neither of these is the case at the present constitutional democracy works best.
And as I said before the checks we currently have in the system to guard against the tyranny of the majority are good enough for me. They arent impenetrable but they are hard to clear. Unfortunately with how things are, sometimes bad ideas become policy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would happen if there was a religion in the US that supported same sex marriages? Say Catholicism did an about face and it's okay now (yeah I know, NEVER in a million years), but all of a sudden gay Catholics can get married. Does the Constitution guarantee them the right do to so legally? Would laws that make it impossible for them to do so count as religious persecution?
Now you've touched on a topic near and dear to my heart - the free exercise clause.
*mmmm cockles warming mmmm*
The short answer is no (assuming you meant "religious persecution" as it would be defined for constitutional law purposes and that you meant legal recognition of marriage).
To expand:
The free exercise clause has been effectively neutered into meaninglessness, with one very important exception: If one can prove that the law was passed specifically to target a particular religion, such a law would be unconstitutional under the first amendment (coupled with the 14th or 5th).
In the 90s, SCOTUS decided that a law, neutral on its face, must only meet the "rational basis" test in order to survive a challenge based on the free exercise clause. This means the government must merely show that the law could be seen to be "rationally related" to a legitimate aim of government. Note that if the rationale used in the legislature is irrational, a rational rationale can be put forward in court (assuming the original rationale wasn't discriminatory in nature).
The case concerned Peyote use. It was held that a law banning peyote use did not unconstitutionally burden religious freedom of those whose religion called for its use because the law was neutral on its face and rationally related to the legitimate government end of curbing drug abuse.
In your example, if the lack of recognition of gay unions is constitutional under the equal protection and due process clause, there's no way to make it unconstitutional just because some people claim that their religion demands they be legally married.
Now, if the law banned priests from conducting such weddings even if there was no attempt to pass them off as legal marriages, that would interfere with free exercise, because it would be targeting a religious ceremony specifically. And, unlike with polygamy, it's probably unconstitutional since Lawrence to ban same sex couples from living as if they were married as long as they don't try to get a marriage license. This is a contrast to what happened to the Mormons in the Smith case in the 19th century. They weren't trying to get multiple marriage licenses, just live together as man and wife, and they went to prison.
It's not clear if that would happen today - most polygamy cases now involve underage girls and other law breaking, so there hasn't been a direct test in a while.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part about God ruling? I'm all for democracy, but that's because the Lord himself isn't around to do it right. I can't imagine heaven being a democracy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
More the second clause. I think that even (especially?) in Heaven, God is a pretty hands-off kind of ruler.
Also, we would have to dicuss exactly what we mean by "God". Jesus? The Holy Spirit? Are we talking some "person" type being?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: If you believe righteous is a purely subjective term and its impossible for something to be objectively right, I could see why that MIGHT scare you.
As for heaven and hands on/off. I think folks in heaven pretty much agree with God 100% on the right or wrong issues as opposed to, "Would grass look better green or red" no right answer issues. Thats why IMO God could be a hands off type of ruler in heaven.
The only reason IMO that a democracy is useful is that leaders are not always good and have to be kept in check by the people they govern. A righteous person is much more apt to be progressive and correct in his/her decisions then the sum total of the people's opinions. The righteous monarch would also remain in power specifically because the people want him/her to remain in that station, as the results of his/her decisions are perceived to be favorable by those people.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that you and I have very different ideas of righteousness.
I think that some dissent/disagreement/struggle is necessary for freedom. The static nature of 100% agreement is appalling. I think I would rebel just to prove that I could.
And again, what exactly do we mean by God?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, it isn't. It is necessary in our present (run by humans) system because it is by necessity an imperfect system. If the Lord was running it, it wouldn't be an imperfect system.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that you and I have very different ideas of righteousness.
I think that some dissent/disagreement/struggle is necessary for freedom. The static nature of 100% agreement is appalling. I think I would rebel just to prove that I could.
And again, what exactly do we mean by God?
dissent/disagreement/struggle only exist amongst beings of imperfect understanding. Again there is a difference between wishing to cause others to be happy and wishing to cause ill. One (to me at least) is categorically right and the other wrong.
Humans argue endlessly about what constitutes good and evil, but certainly a God with perfect understanding of ALL things would not need to quibble about it with another being of equal understanding.
Your desire to rebel just to show that you can is something humans feel as we are carnal and devilish rather then godly ;P
Again please do not confuse this idea with the idea that, Perfection only has one color. I believe in a God who created this earth (Its not important to debate how) but if this world is any indication of the variety that exists in heaven I do not think you will be strapped for options when it comes to designing your house upstairs.
IMO human beings find alot of satisfaction in debate as we are exposed to new potentially good ideas, as well as exposed to less effective ideas that are demonstratably shown as such. Do you think Gods could really argue about what is right and wrong? Having a perfect knowledge of right and wrong removes any chance that you could learn something and therefore debate is really impossible AND useless.
Harmony is really more beautiful then disharmony if you ask me.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And as I said before the checks we currently have in the system to guard against the tyranny of the majority are good enough for me.
That's because you're not the one being tyrannized. Not for over 100 years.
Well being told that I am too irrational to vote because I am religious definately moves the bar over to that direction Pix. You may disagree but I see the governments decision to continue jailing polygamists as tyranny. In my opinion polygamy is quite capable of working in a healthy manner. Banning it across the board and in the manner that the government did represents a still unremedied injustice, and a blatant slap in the face of part of the 1st ammendment.
Not that I need to feel oppressed to feel normal. I am quite content to live my life without the option of polygamy, but for me the fact remains that the government has trampled on the 1st ammendment in this instance for over 100 years.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
posted
BB: I do think the prohibition on polygamy is tyrrany (as we are using it in this discussion). As you well know, we've discussed it before. But You have said that you're not a polygamist.
And.. I'm sorry, but you've hit a hotbutton
quote: I am quite content to live my life without the option of polygamy
Simply becuase you are content to live your life without something that you should have the right to doesn't mean that everyone has to be content about it.
This is like saying "I would be willing to pay more taxes if..." Just becuase one person is willing to pay more taxes doesn't mean that everyone else should be willing to pay more taxes.
In any event, my statement holds that you are not the one being tyranized.
quote:Originally posted by pH: I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
-pH
Ill say this right now, I am not trying to start another polygamy vs homosexuality, which is right? debate. Merely demonstrate that to say my opinions on governmental checks are irrelavant because I am not currently being oppressed is incorrect. I have polygamist ancestors, pretty sure they felt oppressed by the government. As a Mormon I believe that those who are called to be polygamists ought to be allowed to do so. But even if I was not a Mormon with ties to polygamy I would still think its wrong to assume you know why I feel the way I do. Its not like I accused Pixiest of being disingenuously oppressed as she currently is romantically involved with a man not a woman.
Ill accept your presentation of how YOU feel as accurate if you will do the same for ME.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(humor) ph: One guy is more than enough. Can you imagine cleaning up after and cooking for more than one man? Plus what would the house smell like? Oi! And the toilet seat would never be down and you'd go to say something and you'd get voted down, and you'd never get to watch what you wanted because it would be WWE 24/7. And there would be nothing but beer in the fridge. You'd try to squeeze in some lettuce, or something else green, but the second you turned around it would thrown into the trash from across the room with the exclamation "TWO POINTS!" And the laundry would never be done, and "Oh, buy me some more razorblades the next time you go to the store, What? You just went? well go again!" And they'd always be having belching contests with eachother and it wouldn't matter how much mancandy there was in the house, you still wouldn't get any because they'd be too busy playing xbox. (/humor)
Anyway, I'm sure there's SOME woman out there who wants more than one man.. I mean with 6 billion people on earth, there's someone who wants anything.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: (humor) ph: One guy is more than enough. Can you imagine cleaning up after and cooking for more than one man? Plus what would the house smell like? Oi! And the toilet seat would never be down and you'd go to say something and you'd get voted down, and you'd never get to watch what you wanted because it would be WWE 24/7. And there would be nothing but beer in the fridge. You'd try to squeeze in some lettuce, or something else green, but the second you turned around it would thrown into the trash from across the room with the exclamation "TWO POINTS!" And the laundry would never be done, and "Oh, buy me some more razorblades the next time you go to the store, What? You just went? well go again!" And they'd always be having belching contests with eachother and it wouldn't matter how much mancandy there was in the house, you still wouldn't get any because they'd be too busy playing xbox. (/humor)
Anyway, I'm sure there's SOME woman out there who wants more than one man.. I mean with 6 billion people on earth, there's someone who wants anything.
Pix
I actually use the toilet with the seat down regardless of what I have to do, as its just cleaner that way. I've had a few of my guy friends make fun of me for it. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In your example, if the lack of recognition of gay unions is constitutional under the equal protection and due process clause, there's no way to make it unconstitutional just because some people claim that their religion demands they be legally married.
but
quote:Note that if the rationale used in the legislature is irrational, a rational rationale can be put forward in court (assuming the original rationale wasn't discriminatory in nature).
Suppose that I create the Church of Adam and Steve, and get thousands of devout followers. We then try to overturn the law as it goes against or practice of marrying gay couples--spreading love to all God's people regardless of orientation.
You argue that as long as the harm the government does to our religion is far outweighed by the rational goals that the government has, then the law remains. However if we can disprove all rational arguments against that law, could it be overturned since its minor inconvience to our religion is now larger than the rational good it produces for society and the government?
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, it is expressly not a balancing of the harm to the religion v. good to society. In fact, it can be proven - even admitted by the government - that a different means would accomplish the same end to a greater degree, with less cost and no negative side effects, and no impact on religion, and the act would still pass the rational basis test.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Social Contract.
So, I would have to say that if someone honestly believes that the US will be a worse place because same sex couples could do things like sitting at a bedside in a hospital while their loved one is dying, being able to put their long-time exclusive partner on a health benefits plan, or gain custody of the child they have raised after that child's sole guardian, their partner, dies in a car accident, then . . . ok. I guess vote on that, if your heart and mind are really telling you that's a loving and fair thing to do.
I find withholding basic rights from other people because of their mutually consenting sexual acts morally repugnant.
I do NOT find it morally repugnant to believe that the choice to engage in mutually consenting sexual acts, whether homosexual, extramarital, premarital, or interesting positions etc. are wrong; I have no problem with people writing books about it, or preaching about it. But denying people things like having access to someone they love at death's door? Blegh.
I also cannot imagine worshipping an entity that really wanted that.
Samarkand made this point way back at the third page but nobody seemed to care. Can any of you even IMAGINE what it would be like not to be at your loved ones beside as they were dying? Do you even care that homosexual couples are not allowed to do this? Or is it some sort of consequence that they have to endure because of the sins they have committed? Do you even think of them as being real people with real feelings? The same sort of feelings that you have about your partner?
And Pixiest, while I'm on my rant why would you be cooking and cleaning up after and going to the store for these guys? Can they not do it themselves!
[end of angry rant]
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: And Pixiest, while I'm on my rant why would you be cooking and cleaning up after and going to the store for these guys? Can they not do it themselves!
Oh if only they could.... Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haha, I live in a flat with two other guys (one of them is my partner) and I've gotta say I am the slobbiest of the lot. They are the ones that always do the cooking (and most of the cleaning of everything else) and I do the dishes. But I'm the kind of person that really doesn't care about mess. So if someone didn't do their share, then it wouldn't bother me if it just got messier and messier until one day they decided to clean it. I would be the last one to think "Hey thats getting pretty messy, better clean it up." Most of the time I don't even notice. I would never even think of doing all the cooking and cleaning etc and if somebody expected me to I would be like " What? Are you kidding?!". Hehe
[end of derail of thread] Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
You think you can end a derail that easily. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
quote:For my part, I'm not concerned about giving homosexual couples the ability to share insurance benefits (I support nationalized health care for everyone anyway), the right to hospital visits, or the right to make medical decisions for their partner. Adoption of non-biological children DOES bother me a bit; but I believe homosexuals can be as sterling parents as anyone.
Scott, you say you don't have a problem with most of the secular civil benefits of civil marriage accruing to same sex couples. Is there a mechanism you would support for granting them? How convenient could the mechanism be before you would oppose, it if convenience matters at all, of course?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pH: I cannot wrap my head around why polygamy is okay, but gay marriage is not. Nor do I understand why polygamy must always involve multiple women, but never the other way around.
-pH
Ill say this right now, I am not trying to start another polygamy vs homosexuality, which is right? debate. Merely demonstrate that to say my opinions on governmental checks are irrelavant because I am not currently being oppressed is incorrect. I have polygamist ancestors, pretty sure they felt oppressed by the government. As a Mormon I believe that those who are called to be polygamists ought to be allowed to do so. But even if I was not a Mormon with ties to polygamy I would still think its wrong to assume you know why I feel the way I do. Its not like I accused Pixiest of being disingenuously oppressed as she currently is romantically involved with a man not a woman.
Ill accept your presentation of how YOU feel as accurate if you will do the same for ME.
I wasn't trying to start a debate. Nor was I attacking or assuming anything. I don't know where you got that from my very short post.
You think you can end a derail that easily. Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
I can and I will. Any further derailing of the thread after my [end of derail of thread] is a new derail of the thread and would have nothing to do with my derail even if it was in reply to my derail. I am not responsible for any other persons derailing of the thread only my own. And with that:
[end of derail of the thread]
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there a mechanism you would support for granting them? How convenient could the mechanism be before you would oppose, it if convenience matters at all, of course?
Well... when America finally gets its act together and nationalizes health care, it won't matter. Everyone will get the assistance they need.
I don't have a specific plan in mind; I see no reason why the insurance forms that say 'spouse' can't be modified to be 'secondary principle recipient.'
(Since I don't care about insurance companies doing more paper work, the argument that 'Well, people could be wanting to change their secondary principle recipient ALL THE TIME!' isn't a really a convincing argument to me. I'm not saying that this would be a situation unique to homosexuals, either)
quote:I'm curious though, do you support Anti-Gay legislation because it is a discouragement to homosexuality, or do you do it because you think God's law should be made into public law? Do you support more Biblical Law (or God's Law) being made into national public law instead of the current secular system we have in place?
It depends on the law, really. I'm going to be nebulous here, because I've found in conversations where people use terms 'God's Law,' they mean repression.
I'd like to see higher taxes for the middle/upper classes to support education and welfare-- that, I think, is one of God's laws.
Also, I dislike the use of the term "Anti-gay legislation." In hot button topics like this, terminology is an important piece to keeping the discussion civil. Let's be specific-- I support the current definition of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. I do not support legislation that allows homosexuals to marry.
quote: Also, and this is just me being curious, you have to realize that not allowing same sex unions isn't going to dissuade anyone from being gay if they are already. All it does is force them to live their life in less happiness than they otherwise would have had. So, either you don't believe that, and you really think that not allow SSM is going to turn gay people straight (hasn't really worked well in the last couple hundred years, to say nothing of the last three decades), or you think it is okay to punish these people for their beliefs. Where does the Bible come down on persecution?
Lyrhawn, this falls under the 'it-doesn't-matter-what-happens-after' principle I discussed last page.
I don't believe keeping SSM illegal is going to keep anyone who really wants to from experimenting with homosexuality.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't believe keeping SSM illegal is going to keep anyone who really wants to from experimenting with homosexuality.
Then what actual harm to society do you think is implicit in the legalization of same-sex marriage? Will it make people who don't "really want to" begin experimenting with homosexuality?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they're looking at is as a discouragement, but rather as not *encouraging* it further.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that I'm trying to put down the idea of homosexual unions (I'm actually in favor of them), but civil unions would not give parterns medical proxy over each other. Marriage does not currently provide one spouse automatic medical proxy for the other spouse. That's how you get huge battles of parents v. spouse in terms of when to turn off machines. If you want someone to have your medical proxy (even if it is your spouse) there are legal papers that have to be filled out.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:(humor) ph: One guy is more than enough. Can you imagine cleaning up after and cooking for more than one man? Plus what would the house smell like? Oi! And the toilet seat would never be down and you'd go to say something and you'd get voted down, and you'd never get to watch what you wanted because it would be WWE 24/7. And there would be nothing but beer in the fridge. You'd try to squeeze in some lettuce, or something else green, but the second you turned around it would thrown into the trash from across the room with the exclamation "TWO POINTS!" And the laundry would never be done, and "Oh, buy me some more razorblades the next time you go to the store, What? You just went? well go again!" And they'd always be having belching contests with eachother and it wouldn't matter how much mancandy there was in the house, you still wouldn't get any because they'd be too busy playing xbox.
posted
Or you could just join in with the belching contests and x box playing and throwing trash contests!
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
I think the equal treatment/ equal rights issue comes up in terms of the ease with which same sex couples can enjoy the same rights as hetero couples. So it may indeed be true that inheritance can be arranged via a trust so that everything can roll over neatly to the other partner, but currently same sex couples must pay for and set up that trust, whereas in many cases (states) hetero couples may not need to do so; it's already covered because they are recognized as a legal unit by the government. So there is a failure to treat similar pairs of people equally. Same for hosptial visitation rights - I imagine there may be some hoopla you can go through to set it up, but again it's unfair to make access easier for some than for others, essentially based on gender.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is this what you were referring to in the "it doesn't matter what happens afterward" thing?
quote:It. Doesn't. Matter. What. Happens.
What. Matters. Is. Obedience. To. God's. Laws.
I have to say...the confluence of your reasoning is unnerving to me.
Firstly, the problem with NOT using "Anti-Gay Legislation" is that your position, regardless of whatever niceties you want to paint over it, is about repressing gay rights. They want them, you're saying no, that's repression. I won't use the term for the sake of trying to keep this topic civil, but I think there IS more to the usage of that phrase than simple semantics. If legislation came about that stopped Jews from marrying, it's be called Anti-Semitic Legislation, and I think most people would uphold that phrasing.
Second, your reasoning, that what happens to society is basically immaterial, so long as God's Law is followed scares the bejeezes out of me. Like I said before, you have a right to your vote, however you may wish to use it, but I still think that using that kind of reasoning to legislate religion is antithetical to American principles.
Not to Scott, but to anyone at all -
Why is it that it always takes America 100 years of sliding backwards until we finally see that the first step we took was horribly wrong, and then we scramble all over ourselves and feel guilty for another century in the process? Legislating religion without concern for the common good of the nation is wrong. Denying rights to American citizens based on religious doctrine is wrong, and flies in the face of the reason millions of those immigrants came here to begin with, 300 years ago.
To Scott again -
quote:I support the current definition of marriage as being solely between a man and a woman. I do not support legislation that allows homosexuals to marry.
I agree with that, and you said before that most, if not all, of the secular legal rights that most homosexual couples want, you're okay with them having. So, correct me if I'm wrong but, don't we basically agree in general?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mostly I've been lurking in this thread (except for one post about medical proxy) because we've been having pretty much the same argument here that has been had in so many other Gay Rights threads on this forum. But there are things that I want to say, and I think now is the time.
First, I want to applaud everyone. This is perhaps the first thread on Gay Rights on this forum where noone has made the argument that legalizing civil unions for homosexuals would be the first step in legalizing beastiality. I have been glad to see that this thread has not stooped to that level.
However, it needs to be said that most of the amendments (including the one that will be voted on in South Carolina this year) which ban civil unions for LGBT couples, don't just ban civil unions. Even if they do, banning civil unions can have state-wide repercussions on the population as a whole. Here's a summation of what the new South Carolina law would do.
It is also important to note that not all religions (or denominations therof) have found it necessary to support the ban on civil unions for homosexuals, even while maintaining that homosexuality is a "sin." One example is the United Methodist Church, which supports legislation protecting the rights of the LGBT community civilly (sp?), while still maintaining that the church itself will not condone homosexuality as a "lifestyle."
Ultimately, one of the founding principles of this nation was freedom of religion. It follows then, that if people have the right to choose which religion to follow, then they also have the right to choose not to follow any religion. As this nation has no "national" religion, it is therefore incorrect to force the religious views of some onto others by voting prejudicial, and yes, biased laws into action.
It is of course, everyone's right to vote as they wish to, you will never hear me say otherwise. However, do not be surprised if those same laws are overturned later. Frankly, much as the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's, I am of the opinion that these determinations should be made by the courts, and not voted on.
The truth is, that the current Right-wing Conservative movement to ban gay marriage, has little to do with the politician's belief system. The movement against Gay Rights in this company is like the shtick in a magic act. Politicians want people to look over here to distract from the other issues that might cause voters to cast their ballots in favor of other opponents. Unfortunately, this means that a significant portion of the population's rights are being trampled in the process.
quote:your reasoning, that what happens to society is basically immaterial, so long as God's Law is followed scares the bejeezes out of me.
I understand.
quote: Like I said before, you have a right to your vote, however you may wish to use it, but I still think that using that kind of reasoning to legislate religion is antithetical to American principles.
The key phrase is 'American principles,' which I've stated I don't have a problem with breaking. As a Mormon, my first duty is to God, not my country.
quote:The movement against Gay Rights in this company is like the shtick in a magic act. Politicians want people to look over here to distract from the other issues that might cause voters to cast their ballots in favor of other opponents. Unfortunately, this means that a significant portion of the population's rights are being trampled in the process.
Except that the GOP politician has to do nothing more than say, "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" in order to gain the votes of pro-traditional-marriage folks. No GOP politician has to explain or rationalize his stance on the subject; this is because there is a grass-roots movement that has nothing to do with the politicians.
In other words, the politicians are not driving the movement to keep SSM out of society-- it's being entirely driven by citizens and citizen groups.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
