quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
That type of reasoning makes me want to
Anyways, it's a matter of equal rights, not love.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
Sure. Just as it's not required for a straight couple to marry. But the reasons to get married are exactly the same.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: I ask this lightly--would you mind enlightening me as to how SSM will encourage monogamy?
I should think that'd be obvious. Despite the fine job heterosexuals have done with the institution of marriage (cough, cough), the existence of a framework creates stability. In theory, at least, having to obtain a divorce to nullify a union means it isn't something to be done on a whim.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: In reading about this, I have heard that some gay male couple define monogamy differently than I define monogamy--that is, my version of monogamy means no sex with any non-spouse, EVER.
I have known some hetero married couples who have a looser definition of monogamy, i.e., infrequent "cheating" is acceptable, and I have read that this is more frequently how monogamy is practiced in male gay couples.
Some, maybe. But you just said that it's done that way by some opposite sex couples. So what's your point?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: That kinda-sorta monogamy is a better protection against disease than promiscuity, but still not as sure as total monogamy.
<blink> Excuse me? The only reason to be monogamous is to protect against disease? How sad...
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: But the bigger issue here is, how does having a legal recognition of marriage make a difference in whether G/L couples are monogamous?
It's no more a question than "how does having a legal recognition of marriage make a difference in whether straight couples are monogamous".
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: The pictures I see and stories I read focus on G/L couples who stick by each other and love each other. They reiterate, "Our love knows no bounds."
If they have so much love, then why would they require government recognition of their relationship, in the form of redefining marriage? Isn't that just a detail?
Stop with the "redefining marriage" stuff. Was it redefining marriage when interracial marriage became legalized? No. Marriage has always been defined as two people who love each other solemnizing their union. Not "two people of the same race". Not "two people of the opposite sex".
Once upon a time, it was simply assumed that the "two people" were going to be of the same race. It only became an issue when that assumption was questioned. And once upon a time, it was simply assumed that the "two people" were going to be of different sexes". That's only become an issue now that the assumption is being questioned.
My religion doesn't permit same-sex marriage. I support that 100%, given the definition and purpose of marriage in Judaism. I'll never have a Jewish wedding, and that's fine with me. But the government which taxes me and which claims a right to rule me under the principle of freedom and equality for all citizens under the law is registering what it calls "marriage", which is not the same as what my religion calls marriage. And it is giving financial and legal favors to those who enter into that status. And I'll be damned if my taxes are going to be used to give you goodies that I'm not allowed to have as well.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: If for some reason my marriage wasn't recognized by the government, it wouldn't change my fidelity to my husband.
posted
"But, Steven, violence is inborn/natural too. And yet that's a moral issue."
State- and religion-sponsored violence go on all the time, and have for thousands of years. A good chunk of the Old Testament is about God telling the Jews to go whip some tail. Morality, at its heart, is about demonstrable harm. Religious organizations are not always able to change as fast as society changes these days or ever, but they still do change, and they have to.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the government which taxes me and which claims a right to rule me under the principle of freedom and equality for all citizens under the law is registering what it calls "marriage", which is not the same as what my religion calls marriage. And it is giving financial and legal favors to those who enter into that status. And I'll be damned if my taxes are going to be used to give you goodies that I'm not allowed to have as well.
That is one of the best arguments posted here so far.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Prelude: sorry this post is so long. I started writing and just kept going. As with all my posts when I wax somewhat philosophical, I don't guarantee that I fully believe everything I've written below, or that upon request for clarification, I won't back-peddle (at least a little bit).
Re: my question regarding whether there is an argument against incest marriages other than the "ick" factor, the California decision includes this statement (pointed out over on the Convictions blog at Slate):
quote:"although the historic disparagement of the discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment.
The court did not examine, to my knowledge (since I haven't read the full opinion, just snippets), what those potentially (I think that's a fascinating modifier they used) detrimental effects on a sound family environment are.
I gained another perspective about my personal reasons for opposing legalization for SSM from a somewhat unlikely source: the earlier comment that the abbreviation "SSM" reminded the poster of "S&M." For me, every time I read SSM I have a cognitive association with FSM. Exploring this further, I find that I associate the movement to gain legal recognition of same-sex unions with related movements, all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other, in general, and if they're not hurting each other they should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want. The definition of "hurt" seems very vague, but includes some forms (but not all) of emotional distress, financial loss, or physical pain. As a result, we see laws relating to (for example) theft, murder and other Christian sins not being challenged (there's obvious physical/financial harm) while we see laws based on consensual sex, profanity, or Sabbath-observance (where I'd say the harm is more subtle) being overturned and relegated to the historic dust heap.
My primary concern with all this is NOT that our society is becoming "less Christian" per se. It's not that I believe our society will implode (one of my favorite straw men from the pro-SSM contingent). It's the fundamental idea of broad, societal change.
On a deep level I am a conservative (not to be confused with a Conservative in the US political sense). I am sceptical of change; I think "progress" seldom leads to improvement. As such, my perception that we are willy-nilly changing the foundation upon which we base our laws and social norms is very troubling. It isn't fundamentally concerned with my being a Christian or not; it has more to do with me believing that history and tradition is, generally speaking, a good guide to a well-functioning society, and that no matter how logically presented or lengthily discussed, adoption of new societal norms will have long-lasting effects that are a priori unknowable. Furthermore, due to the human propensity for hope, what is "new" will always be presented in a positive light that is unreflective of what the reality will be. I view the idea that, somehow, we know better, are more enlightened, have keener insight, than those who went before to be the height of conceit.
While I feel this way, I'm glad that there are those that don't. I view society as a system, and I believe the presence of both resisters (or conservatives) and reactors (or progressives) is necessary for a well-performing system. The other integral element is a fusion rule for the dissenting opinions; which is why I'm much more concerned about gerry-mandering and judicial activism and ceding legislative powers to the executive branch and the flow of power from localities to the Federal government, than I am about any social issue. Because I believe that the decision fusion methodology active in the US political system is phenomenal and efforts to subvert it for short term gains are a significant danger to the health of our society.
Which is all to say, I love you all and am glad to have you as my fellow social components, no matter how wrong I think you are.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with your last paragraph (or last two, if you count the single sentence as a paragraph) completely. I am curious, though, about "I think "progress" seldom leads to improvement." Are you thinking of that on a fairly short timeline, i.e. "progress" over the last 70 years or so, or do you really think that societal norms were better 200 or 1000 years ago?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage has always been defined as two people who love each other solemnizing their union.
It most certainly has NOT "always been defined" as only two people. It also has not always been because the parties involved were in love. The only part of your definition that is actually true is "solemnizing their union."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: I agree with your last paragraph (or last two, if you count the single sentence as a paragraph) completely. I am curious, though, about "I think "progress" seldom leads to improvement." Are you thinking of that on a fairly short timeline, i.e. "progress" over the last 70 years or so, or do you really think that societal norms were better 200 or 1000 years ago?
No. But if I'd lived 200 years ago, I imagine I would have felt the same way about the proposed progress (women the right to vote; humph, that can't be a good thing).
Which is to say, I would have been right and wrong; I think (believe, have faith in) the unique nature of our system allows positive change to be brought about and eventually made permanent (despite the best efforts of conservatives) but prevents bad change from occurring or persisting (despite the best efforts of progressives), where "good" and "bad" should be understood as relating to the health of the society and NOT according to some objective individual morality.
<edit>I think perhaps I obscured things by my "right to vote" example. In assessing the role of "progress" of our society we need to examine both how it has changed and how it has refused to change. It's hard (at least for me) to point to an example of negative change that was espoused by progressives that either didn't last or was prevented from implementation; perhaps the move toward radical wealth redistribution in the early 20th century.</edit>
I am happy to provide the other side of the balance.
I tend to think that we move closer to the kingdom as we progress - especially as we progress towards justice. And I think that it is arrogance to think that we know better, are more enlightened, and have keener insight than our children and their children will.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other
Senoj, just curious what you mean when you say our society was 'one based in Christian tradition'?
That could mean many different things, a number of which I think are historically inaccurate, so I just want to know how you mean it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Marriage has always been defined as two people who love each other solemnizing their union.
It most certainly has NOT "always been defined" as only two people. It also has not always been because the parties involved were in love. The only part of your definition that is actually true is "solemnizing their union."
I agree with katharina here. I think love being the key definition of marriage is an extremely modern concept. I would say marriages were traditionally more of a business arrangement, often entered into by two people with no real choice in the matter with the main benefit going to their parents.
I also disagree with the idea that a homosexual union and a heterosexual union are the same. On whole, the probability of a heterosexual couple ending up with a child without outside intervention is infinitely higher then a homosexual couple. The risk of pregnancy makes things different (I have a friend right now pregnant with a "how the heck did the sperm get through three types of protection" baby and another whose husband almost left her over their oops baby). So, if the argument is that we should encourage marriage because it is good for babymaking (not raising, just making), looking at the whole population, not individuals, then there is an argument for giving perks only to straight couples.
Also, arguing for equal rights- supreme court ruled you can pay an equivalent man and woman different salaries as long as she doesn't find out for the first 180 days of employment. And congress couldn't get enough votes to change that. Clearly, equality is not necessarily a winning argument.
Better to answer the question- why is society better for legally recognizing same sex marriages. Marriages increase stability in our society so more people being married is good. Plus, we have lots of kids who need homes. Since gay couples can't make their own babies, they can raise the babies that are being neglected and abused right now. Having someone who is automatic next of kin makes inheritance issues easier as well as deciding what to do in case of medical problems where the individual can not communicate wishes. Having to legally dissolve a union requires a lot more work then just breaking up, so this will encourage couples to stay together, perhaps invest in a house together since they have increased security- that's good for the economy.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, if the argument is that we should encourage marriage because it is good for babymaking (not raising, just making), looking at the whole population, not individuals, then there is an argument for giving perks only to straight couples.
[/QB]
Or we could give them to people with babies. Hmmm...maybe a tax incentive.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, if the argument is that we should encourage marriage because it is good for babymaking (not raising, just making), looking at the whole population, not individuals, then there is an argument for giving perks only to straight couples.
Or we could give them to people with babies. Hmmm...maybe a tax incentive. [/QB]
Or we could give tax incentives to people who don't have babies.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was responding to the argument that we, as a society, want to encourage people to have babies. (I don't necessarily agree with this; I think that people will have plenty of babies without government incentives.) If we did want to do that, it makes more sense to me to "reward" the actual baby-making rather than reward straight couples over same-sex couples.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you also want to provide people with a security while having sex that should the women become pregnant, there will be legal protection for her. I have known too many people who have had babies while on the pill, using a condom, with a diaphram, etc to actually believe any of those methods can be fully trusted. I even know people who have had babies after getting tubes tied.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being pregnant and having a child has devastating effects on a woman's earning capacity. Part of the purpose of marriage laws is providing legal protection and support for her and the children. It isn't fair, but that's the biology: reproducing is riskier for a woman. Marriage laws reduce the risk for the mother and raise the legal obligations of the father. I think that's a great idea.
By definition, that reduction of risk is not necessary for gay couples. No one is going to get pregnant without considerable effort.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leaping over the last page and a half and going back to the concept of Civil Unions being the control of Government and Marriage being under the control of Religion.
First, Marriage and Religion, I made that case based on spiritual unions as opposed to legal unions. I highly doubt that athiest engage in 'spiritual' unions of this nature so they need no sanctifying body like the church.
So, in a clarification, spiritual unions are sanctified or certified by non-government entities, and the arbitration of these unions is carried out by the sanctifying or certifying body.
These unions carry no secular legal force. They can only be enforced to the extent that the involved parties recognize and accept the authority of the certifying body.
Again, we can use the Catholic Church as an example, you can be married and legally (by secular authority) be divorce, but the Catholic church will not recognize that divorce even though all legal and civil authorities will. You are free to legally remarry, if you chose not to recognize the authority of the church in this matter.
So, relative to exclusively spiritual marriages, there are no accompanying legal right or irresponsibilities, no tax benefits, no insurance claims, no divorce settlement, no medical decisions, beyond what is within the realm of the certifying non-government body to enforce.
Now, Civil Unions or secular marriage is a matter of law. There are certain inescapable legal responsibilities that come with 'marriage'. The governments involvement in 'marriage' is to insure that these legal responsibilities are documented and certified so that in the future they can not be legally contested.
You are the father of the children that result from this marriage, you have a legal obligation to those children. You also have legal obligations to your wife. Registering marriage insures that you live up to these responsibilities.
Now, certain rights and privileges also accompany documented secular legal marriage; shared benefits, right to make legal decisions relative to money, health, death, and taxes. Right to not be denied access to your family without due process of law. Etc...
So, I feel that the government very much does have a legal hand and place in documenting and certifying marriage. These legal right, benefits, and responsibilities must be insured.
Now most people take care of the legal aspects, and still have a religious or non-government ceremony in which they feel said ceremony makes their marriage complete. Yet, that ceremony for the most part carries no legal significant other than the fact that the pastor or minister is allowed to sign certifying that an offical ceremony has been completed.
However, I suspect you could skip the ceremony altogether, and simply get an authorized legal party to sign the marriage license, and that would be it. Simply a matter of entering into a contract.
In this sense, all marriages are civil unions because they are about civil and criminal law, and are certified by nothing more than a legal contract.
Still, most people want to take in beyond a legal contract and make it a spiritual or religious matter. That is a matter of personal preference, it really has nothing to do with law.
So, in a sense, we already have what I proposed earlier. Marriage is nothing but a civil union certified by the government. So, let's just make it that officially.
If people want to be spiritually married, they can add that additional ceremony by their own choosing.
In casual conversation, nothing has to change, people who are civilly 'married' can still refer to themselves as married. Most choose a further religious ceremony, so in that case, nothing changes.
I guess we could look at it this way, one couple could rightly in casual conversation say that they are married, another couple who went through both the civil certification and the religious ceremony could instead say they are Married.
married - a legal civil union casually referred to as 'marriage'.
Married - a legal civil union combine with the further authority of their preferred non-government body.
It seems a small distinction and it is. At present legal marriage is a civil union that we acceptably refer to as 'marriage'. In that sense, nothing would change; 'married' would still be 'married'.
However, if you chose to avoid the legal aspects, and chose only spiritual or non-government marriage that would be you free and legal choice. Though it should be noted that even in non-government marriage, there would be legal obligations regarding you wife and children, those legal aspects would just be a little harder to enforce.
This leaves the concept and implementation of Marriage in the hands of people who feel the need to preserve it in a conceptual form that seems right to them.
But, does not interfere with people who want to insure their rights and responsibilities with regard to 'unions'.
posted
Maybe it would be wise to use a term other than "spiritual marriage" to define the religious/sacramental/sacred aspect of marriage. "Spiritual marriage" already means a couple of other things, marriage without the sexual aspect and the sex with minors practice by that polygamous cult.
I agree that children should be protected and mothers should have support. It is not the case, though, that only married people have babies or that married people always have babies. Why not tie the protection and the support to the baby rather than to the couple getting married. Fathers are still fathers - married or not - and still have an obligation to provide protection and support.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SenojRetep, I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick on you when I keep poking at this, but I find your position interesting so I'm trying to understand it better.
Are you saying that you don't feel the need to evaluate whether any given change is good or bad for society -- you've taken the role of opponent of change and since other people will take the proponent role things will balance out correctly?
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
by saying "You are the father of the children that result from this marriage, you have a legal obligation to those children. You also have legal obligations to your wife. Registering marriage insures that you live up to these responsibilities", the definition of "marriage" here doesn't have to mean a formalized contract of a civil union.. If I go out and father a child, I assume obligations relative to the mother and child regardless of whether or not we have entered into a formal civil contract.
A formal civil union, this type of automatic protection of children, and marriages sanctioned by religious authorities can all be separate categories and need little relation with each other.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you father a child, you have an obligation to pay child support, but no obligations to support the mother. If you are married and divorced, then you may be obligated to pay alimony, which does go to the mother.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:In reading about this, I have heard that some gay male couple define monogamy differently than I define monogamy--that is, my version of monogamy means no sex with any non-spouse, EVER.
Could I ask where you are reading this? This sounds suspiciously like a a study that I've seen pop up here and there that supposedly shows gays to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. What is never mentioned is that the criteria for selecting subjects in that study was that they be people who were not in long-term monogomous relationships. So a study of people who are not monogomous found a high level of promiscuity. Go figure!
EDIT: I found a commentary on the specific study, often cited as the "Dutch Study". It also appears to be heavily weighted towards gay men with AIDS.
posted
Nato, if a man should provide protection to his children and support to the mother(s) of those children, I think that he should be required to do that whether or not they have been married.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by steven: "But, Steven, violence is inborn/natural too. And yet that's a moral issue."
State- and religion-sponsored violence go on all the time, and have for thousands of years. A good chunk of the Old Testament is about God telling the Jews to go whip some tail. Morality, at its heart, is about demonstrable harm. Religious organizations are not always able to change as fast as society changes these days or ever, but they still do change, and they have to.
Morality is about demonstrable harm; what we may differ on is what constitutes "harm".
And, everyone, please enlighten me as to what benefits, specifically, the government offers only to hetero married couples, and not to same-sex couples.
What disparities exist, that cannot be solved through civil unions?
What is so important about "marriage" as a term?
What is the desire here--is it wanting civil/legal things, or is it wanting a cultural thing?
Because it isn't that hard to get a power-of-attorney, to draw up a will and name one's lover/partner as beneficiary, to include the other on one's health insurance plan. That can be done already.
What I'm picking up here is that for some same-sex couples, it's really important to feel validated, to be recognized as "married".
I didn't argue that monogamy is good because it prevents disease transmission--steven did.
I do think there is a great deal of emotional harm that has lasting societal effects whenever one is involved in a non-monogamous relationship--that is, a relationship that is supposed to be monogamous, but where one partner "cheats".
And because some people fail at monogamy, society suffers. I don't think adultury is victimless crime.
But that's neither here nor there. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys (and I'm sure I don't have to ask twice ) but what you are saying is that society is doing great harm to homosexuals by not officially recognizing same-sex couples in precisely the same way heterosexual couples are recognized. Yes?
And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means, I assume this is a social/emotional harm? Is social/emotional harm subjective, or can it be quantified?
Because if we can't argue "officially recognizing gay unions hurts our society", then I don't think the inverse can fairly be argued either.
If I wanted to be a polygamist, would you fight for my right to a previously illegal union?
And, my taxes go to support things I don't personally want to support all the time. Most people end up paying for something they don't want, through taxes. We have a way to have our say about what things we DO want to spend our taxes on; it's called a legislature. Maybe we should let our legislatures decide this issue, instead of having the courts decide it for us.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is so important about "marriage" as a term?
This is the same question that gays are asking. Apparently there is value to the term because both groups want to own it. Well, I guess the gays are willing to share.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can the civil/legal benefits be attained by other means? As far as I'm aware, the only way you can get a tax break for being married is by... being married. The only way you can get *instant* access to a person in an emergency/hospital situation is by being related to them by blood or marriage. It's much easier to adopt children as a couple in certain areas if you're married. Etc, etc, etc. There are numerous rights granted to married couples that are impossible, or very, very difficult to gain in any way outside of marriage.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means,
All of the civil/legal benefits can not be obtained by other means. A power of attorney may grant some subset of marriage rights, but it does achieve full parity.
Take a look at the number of documents that need to be prepared, along with the caveats about their enforcability in different juridictions, at this site:
All of that just to get a portion of the benefits that occur automatically when a couple is married. And that page is only covering estate planning issues.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Because it isn't that hard to get a power-of-attorney, to draw up a will and name one's lover/partner as beneficiary, to include the other on one's health insurance plan. That can be done already.
That is absolutely not true. Some companies choose to offer benefits to non-married partners, but unless your employer makes that choice you cannot just choose to include someone on your health insurance plan.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In reading about this, I have heard that some gay male couple define monogamy differently than I define monogamy--that is, my version of monogamy means no sex with any non-spouse, EVER.
Could I ask where you are reading this? This sounds suspiciously like a a study that I've seen pop up here and there that supposedly shows gays to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. What is never mentioned is that the criteria for selecting subjects in that study was that they be people who were not in long-term monogomous relationships. So a study of people who are not monogomous found a high level of promiscuity. Go figure!
EDIT: I found a commentary on the specific study, often cited as the "Dutch Study". It also appears to be heavily weighted towards gay men with AIDS.
The problem with trying to determine if gay men are more promiscuous then straight men is that you first have to determine if men or women are more promiscuous. If men are more willing to engage in a one night stand then women, in a heterosexual situation that means less one night stands. From talking to my straight male friends, if more girls were willing, they would have a lot more one night stands then they do.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: If you father a child, you have an obligation to pay child support, but no obligations to support the mother. If you are married and divorced, then you may be obligated to pay alimony, which does go to the mother.
Ehh, of course. Obligations to the child frequently pass through the mother. It doesn't matter to my point. You just don't have to consider the obligations imposed by the different sorts of contracts (church marriages, state-sanctioned civil unions, and automatic protection of children) together.
And when considering the benefits the state grants through recognition of civil contracts, you don't need to consider the other two levels. From the state's perspective, I don't see a reason gender should be a factor in the paperwork (If you make such a distinction, you have to justify it in terms of the state and federal constitution). Individual A and Individual B.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The problem with trying to determine if gay men are more promiscuous then straight men is that you first have to determine if men or women are more promiscuous. If men are more willing to engage in a one night stand then women, in a heterosexual situation that means less one night stands. From talking to my straight male friends, if more girls were willing, they would have a lot more one night stands then they do.
No doubt. Even ignoring that fact, the studies that are cited are worse than useless because they don't prove the points that anti-SSM people think they prove. A study of non-monogamous gay urban males with AIDS is not going to provide any useful information on the relative promiscuity of gay and straight men.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other
Senoj, just curious what you mean when you say our society was 'one based in Christian tradition'?
I mean the legal base for most of the laws in our states and localities is due to Christian ideals of behavior. That, I believe, is why there are anti-sodomy laws on the books in so many places, and why SSM has not been recognized in America for the first 400 years of its history. Its also why profanity was outlawed, and why stores were compelled to close on Sunday. I guess whether the federal constitution is the product of a Christian legal tradition is perhaps more debatable. However, the laws under which we live, and the unwritten laws under which we operate, are largely due, I believe, to the Christian tradition.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other
Senoj, just curious what you mean when you say our society was 'one based in Christian tradition'?
I mean the legal base for most of the laws in our states and localities is due to Christian ideals of behavior. That, I believe, is why there are anti-sodomy laws on the books in so many places, and why SSM has not been recognized in America for the first 400 years of its history. Its also why profanity was outlawed, and why stores were compelled to close on Sunday. I guess whether the federal constitution is the product of a Christian legal tradition is perhaps more debatable. However, the laws under which we live, and the unwritten laws under which we operate, are largely due, I believe, to the Christian tradition.
Put that broadly, I would agree. But with the caveat that the Christian tradition is largely due to the Jewish tradition, which is largely due to all the other traditions that came before it.
But don't want to turn this into a game of 'what came first'. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: SenojRetep, I hope you don't think I'm trying to pick on you when I keep poking at this, but I find your position interesting so I'm trying to understand it better.
Are you saying that you don't feel the need to evaluate whether any given change is good or bad for society -- you've taken the role of opponent of change and since other people will take the proponent role things will balance out correctly?
Not at all. I just find that, after examining my feelings and various rationales, I almost always end up on the side opposing change. I recognize that, from a historical perspective, many of my positions will be wrong; however I don't believe a priori that any of them are. What I mean is, I'm sincere in my beliefs, but I recognize that no matter how well studied out I try to be on a matter, its a given that sometimes I will have misjudged the long term effects.
That's manybe not an entirely clear explanation. Perhaps I could say that while I believe what I believe, I am not so conceited as to be unable to admit that I will sometimes be found, after the fact, to have misjudged the consequences of some changes. I'm not knowingly wrong about any one thing, but I'm almost certain that I'm wrong about something.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, one of my big fears is living long enough to learn everything I've been wrong about. Or, rather, the painful process of changing once it becomes evident that change is what society requires of me.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means,
All of the civil/legal benefits can not be obtained by other means. A power of attorney may grant some subset of marriage rights, but it does achieve full parity.
Take a look at the number of documents that need to be prepared, along with the caveats about their enforcability in different juridictions, at this site: http://www.gaymarriagelawyers.com/ia/ia4.htm
All of that just to get a portion of the benefits that occur automatically when a couple is married. And that page is only covering estate planning issues.
When Havah and I bought our home, we were told that we could not have the title list us as joint tenants in entirety. Why? Because we're not married. Read this:
quote:TBE is a concurrent estate, similar to joint tenancy, which can be established only by and between a husband and a wife for a primary personal residence. The primary difference (and advantage) that a TBE has over joint tenancy is that creditors of an individual spouse cannot reach real estate held in a TBE to satisfy a claim of only one, but not both, of the spouses. Another factor to consider is that, unlike a joint tenancy, a TBE cannot be unilaterally severed by either joint owner.
In other words, we are going to be penalized because we're not allowed to marry.
There isn't a thing we can do about it, either. We're at the mercy of a state that deems us second class citizens.
quote:all of which seek to transform society through the use of legislation, from one based in Christian tradition to a very different morality based loosely on a single assertion that people shouldn't hurt each other
Senoj, just curious what you mean when you say our society was 'one based in Christian tradition'?
I mean the legal base for most of the laws in our states and localities is due to Christian ideals of behavior. That, I believe, is why there are anti-sodomy laws on the books in so many places, and why SSM has not been recognized in America for the first 400 years of its history. Its also why profanity was outlawed, and why stores were compelled to close on Sunday. I guess whether the federal constitution is the product of a Christian legal tradition is perhaps more debatable. However, the laws under which we live, and the unwritten laws under which we operate, are largely due, I believe, to the Christian tradition.
But hang on, all your examples are of bad things! Unless you want to return to laws against profanity and Sunday opening? I'm not getting how this is an argument in favour of the status quo. "Our laws are based on tradition X, which does A, B and C, all of which are bad. So clearly our current laws are the best possible!" Obviously this cannot be what you are arguing, but I don't understand what you are saying instead.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Once the government recognize a marriage as being a whatever its participants say it is, what will we do about the religious definition of marriage?
Since churches are tax-exempt, will they be next on the roster of change?
I think it clearly matters to some, what churches think, especially about what consititutes a "marriage".
I think it is reasonable to pass legislature that affords the same legal rights and benefits to SS couples. Isn't that what CA's Domestic Partners Act is?
What it is not, is a "right" to marriage. The right to marriage isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Nobody has a "right" to marriage.
I am confused--first someone argues that marriage isn't a big deal, so hetero couple should be grateful that SS couples are generously willing to share the term (hi, Mattp )
but apparently it's a big deal, a huge deal, that SS couples not only have civil unions, but marriages, and it grievously harms homosexuals to not be married.
Maybe if I give personal background, you'll see where I'm coming from, and why I'm curious.
I am LDS, and my husband is a member. We are civilly married (well, most of the time, hee hee) but we have not been married in the temple, or "sealed".
Being sealed, according to our church's doctrine, is different from civil marriage, in that there are different/more commandments, and different/more blessings.
Sometimes some people at church have the attitude that because DH and I have not been sealed, we aren't "really married", which is silly. Of course we're married, and that marriage does matter.
That lack of validation--that attitude that DH and I won't be really married util we're sealed, doesn't affect our love for each other, or our fidelity.
We don't fight to be called "sealed", because we are not sealed. We aren't.
Sometime boneheads at church will be a little judgemental about it, and sometimes people are perfectly nice about it.
But despite the boneheads at church, DH and I are not deprived or denied anything, and we refuse to adopt their attitude that our marriage somehow doesn't matter as much as a temple marriage does; and despite the niceness of others, we do not expect them to call us "sealed", to make us feel better.
In a way, doesn't demanding the government recognize gay partnerships as "marriage" show a sort of...inferiority complex?
The G/L/B people I've talked to before have been adamant that the homosexual lifestyle is a perfectly valid choice.
If so, and if civil unions carry the same legal bennies as civil marriage, then why with the need to adopt a historically heterosexual construct like "marriage"?
If homosexuality is not just a preference, like whether you prefer Brie to Havarti cheese, but instead is a whole way of thinking and a whole different way of life...and if heterosexual people and culture are seen as oppressors and deniers or rights...then why would one even want to associate with that culture?
What I see here is, people have a great deal of regard for something historical--marriage--but also feel little compunction in changing that.
I am not sealed; in my religion, DH and I would need to conform and change to have that term applied to us. We don't consider that oppressive or unfair.
How is it oppressive and unfair for a culture to say, "No, sorry, we will call you partnered, or united, or whatever else you like, but 'married' is for one man/one woman lifelong contracts."
Really. I'm not asking to be rude; just asking in order to be informed.
I do think that marriage is made to support procreation; I do think procreation is essential. I think we have societies for the sake of our children, and we have and teach children, for the sake of building and maintaining our societies. I think humans are good and should survive as a race, and societies where monogamy and the protection of children from every kind of harm is the best assurance of the continued survival of humans.
Not that anybody asked.
Out of curiousity, how would you react to the government and/or churches creating a new term reserved only for heterosexual marriages?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But despite the boneheads at church, DH and I are not deprived or denied anything...
Do you not still call yourself "married" in nine social situations out of ten? And in nine situations out of ten, does not the word "married" suffice? How often, in your common discussions, does your "sealing" status come up? Do you have a different word for "person to whom I am eternally sealed" than "husband?"
You accept that you are not "sealed" because you recognize that there is a fundamental difference between "sealing" and "marriage." The point homosexual couples are trying to make is that there is -- at least from their point of view -- no fundamental, substantive difference between their union and a heterosexual union. If the Mormons you knew refused to call you married, would you mind? What if they constantly called your husband your "boyfriend" or "partner?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Once the government recognize a marriage as being a whatever its participants say it is, what will we do about the religious definition of marriage?
Since churches are tax-exempt, will they be next on the roster of change?
Huh? I don't see where you're going here at all. Churches often have different definition of what it means to be married than the state does. That was pointed out earlier in this thread.
I don't see how that follows to threatening their tax-exempt status either. It's like you're making a slippery slope argument where halfway down the slope you get teleported to a DIFFERENT slope.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tax exemption is exactly equivalent to getting government funds. (Which is why churches should not be tax exempt, to be sure, not that this is going to happen.) One could easily argue that if the government is going to give churches special favours, then the churches ought to follow the government line.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But hang on, all your examples are of bad things! Unless you want to return to laws against profanity and Sunday opening? I'm not getting how this is an argument in favour of the status quo. "Our laws are based on tradition X, which does A, B and C, all of which are bad. So clearly our current laws are the best possible!" Obviously this cannot be what you are arguing, but I don't understand what you are saying instead.
I would probably argue in favor of returning to the previous rule in both of those cases; I'm very bothered by public vulgarity (on a par with my distress over littering). I also thing a compulsory break, one day a week, from buying and selling (whether its Sunday or not) would result in an improved perspective within our society.
However, if 200 years from now those things have become a permanent part of our society, and if I were transported to such a point and an argument was made to change them, I might have a very different opinion than the one I hold today. Or maybe not, I can't say for sure.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
To Sachiko: I would suspicious that over time it could be leveraged to create actual legal inequalities, and even short of that, lead to the potential of covert discrimination where certain rights/privileges ought to be applied equitably to both "married" folks and "civilly unioned" folks, but aren't because we can't really know why a mortgage lending agent turns down a same-sex couple for a house that they approve for a heterosexual couple.
Of course, the latter can still happen, even if marriage is used as the blanket term, but there's a heck of a lot of common law involved with legal marriage that would probably give the same-sex couple a leg up if they chose to challenge the decision of the agent.
posted
So in fact, you want to use the power of the state dictate when I can, or cannot, buy milk, in order to satisfy some vague longing for a 'better perspective'? Is this seriously what you are arguing, or am I just totally misunderstanding you? Because if it is, then dude, you are just a walking argument for using the power of the state to suppress all religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, then, how will you react if churches persist in refusing to recognize your SS marriage?
What about other organizations?
What will you ask to be called instead? What will you agree to be called instead?
Sealing status does come up, TomDavidson. And there is a difference between "husband" and "eternal husband" or, more commonly, "eternal companion". It does come up, more often than you'd think (sometimes more often than I'd like) that I do not actually have an "eternal companion", though I do have a husband.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And, everyone, please enlighten me as to what benefits, specifically, the government offers only to hetero married couples, and not to same-sex couples.
We can't file our taxes jointly. We can't hold title on our home safely. If you're asking this question honestly, and not just as a rhetorical device, I'd be glad to get you a list of the things we're denied.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What disparities exist, that cannot be solved through civil unions?
None at all. Provided that it's civil unions for you as well.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What is so important about "marriage" as a term?
Why should I be forced, for example, to out myself when asked for my marital status? Why should I have to worry about whether my employer provides same-sex partner medical benefits? Not to mention the fact that the part of those benefits which covers my partner is taxable, which wouldn't be the case if we were an opposite sex couple.
So I get fined for being gay, if I'm even lucky enough to find a job that is willing to pay more for medical coverage so that they can cover same-sex partners.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What is the desire here--is it wanting civil/legal things, or is it wanting a cultural thing?
Civil, legal and cultural things. Why are they mutually exclusive?
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Because it isn't that hard to get a power-of-attorney, to draw up a will and name one's lover/partner as beneficiary, to include the other on one's health insurance plan. That can be done already.
No. I don't know where you live, but it's not all that easy. First of all, some of the things you're talking about are bloody expensive. Are you willing to pay for it?
Second of all, what about people in Michigan? The Michiganers passed a constitutional amendment prohibiting any of the things that are even like marriage to be applied to same-sex unions. As a result, people who had medical benefits for their same-sex partners found them cancelled by government decree.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: What I'm picking up here is that for some same-sex couples, it's really important to feel validated, to be recognized as "married".
I think you want to minimize the issue and portray it as something you deem trivial. You want to obscure the real cost of this discrimination rather than face up to what it is.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: But that's neither here nor there. Correct me if I'm wrong, guys (and I'm sure I don't have to ask twice ) but what you are saying is that society is doing great harm to homosexuals by not officially recognizing same-sex couples in precisely the same way heterosexual couples are recognized. Yes?
Yes. Either recognize our marriages like your marriages, or get the government out of the business of recognizing marriage altogether.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And since the civil/legal benefits can be attained by other means, I assume this is a social/emotional harm? Is social/emotional harm subjective, or can it be quantified?
Your premise is wrong, so your conclusion lacks any validity. They cannot be attained by other means.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: And, my taxes go to support things I don't personally want to support all the time. Most people end up paying for something they don't want, through taxes. We have a way to have our say about what things we DO want to spend our taxes on; it's called a legislature.
In California, the legislature did pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage. Twice. Arnold vetoed them, saying that he wanted the Supreme Court to weigh in. So what's your kvetch now? Both the legislature and the judicial have said the same thing here. And since Arnold has said that he will oppose any constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, that's three for three.
quote:Originally posted by Sachiko: Maybe we should let our legislatures decide this issue, instead of having the courts decide it for us.
If you were honest about saying, "Let the legislature deal with it", you'd applaud what happened in California and be done with it, since that's what happened. But I don't think you are. I think that's simply rhetoric.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) but what you are saying is that society is doing great harm to homosexuals by not officially recognizing same-sex couples in precisely the same way heterosexual couples are recognized. Yes?
