quote: You have already indicated that your reason was to have state endorsement of your disapproval for people who choose lifestyles that are different than yours.
Did I do this specifically, Kate? Where?
I honestly don't remember. In any case, generally, yes-- I agree that social disapproval of a behavior is certainly legitimate reason to enact a law.
In America, we have a judicial system specifically formulated to make sure that the tyranny of the majority doesn't deprive the minority of their Constitutional rights. I support the judiciary in this; I *did* mention, after all, that the CA court was acting within its responsibilities when it struck down prop 22.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: You have already indicated that your reason was to have state endorsement of your disapproval for people who choose lifestyles that are different than yours.
Did I do this specifically, Kate? Where?
I honestly don't remember. In any case, generally, yes-- I agree that social disapproval of a behavior is certainly legitimate reason to enact a law.
Here is where (bolding mine):
quote: Originally posted by Scott R:
So the discussion, at least as far as my opinion about California's laws are concerned, is that obviously, it is not about civil rights; in that regard, there is parity. The discussion is about social and cultural acceptance.
What significant rights do same-sex couples in Califonia lack?
They don't have rights to the same institution as heterosexual couples (see my post at the top of the page). I could list some reasons for why I think that's significant if you like.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:She brought up random because you haven't brought up any secular reason why you would wish to deny equal rights to homosexual couples.
That doesn't make sense in the context of the ongoing discussion. Can you explain?
quote:I know I'm still waiting (to hear one).
What significant rights do same-sex couples in Califonia lack?
We're discussing same-sex marriage. We're discussing reasons why people do and do not want it. No one has given a good secular reason why it should not be allowed.
Same-sex couples in California cannot be married. I'd say that's a significant right.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I don't understand how you are confused by this.
Getting the government to pass a law so that SSM are not considered marriage - so they are not socially and culturally accepted - how is that anything but having your disapproval endorsed by the state?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: No one has given a good secular reason why it should not be allowed.
Nor, I repeat, a good religious one. Not that a good religious one would be sufficient to change the law. Just pointing it out.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: No one has given a good secular reason why it should not be allowed.
Nor, I repeat, a good religious one. Not that a good religious one would be sufficient to change the law. Just pointing it out.
There is no religious one that is sufficient to change any law, actually, unless it's regarding the protection of religious freedoms.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no religious one that is sufficient to change any law, actually, unless it's regarding the protection of religious freedoms.
This is false. If the majority think something is wrong based on a religious reason, it is entirely reasonable for them to pass a law banning it, as long as it doesn't violate any rights (including our right to practice their own religion).
We are a nation that guarantees religious freedom, but we aren't an atheist nation.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if, say, conservative Catholics were in the majority it would be reasonable for us to outlaw divorce or birth control? Chocolate during Lent?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Getting the government to pass a law so that SSM are not considered marriage - so they are not socially and culturally accepted - how is that anything but having your disapproval endorsed by the state?
There's a big difference between this and what you posted initially. The phrase (that you used in the initial accusation) "lifestyles that are different than yours" strikes me as dishonest. In the future, why not just be specific?
1) I believe that a culture has the right to determine what laws, according to its shared beliefs, are enacted.
2) I believe that democracy is (generally) the best means to enable the will of the people.
3) I believe that minorities who do not adhere to the general culture of the majority should be protected, within reason.
4) I believe that same sex marriage is so widely different to what the standard for marriage has been for the past couple centuries, that it is currently not possible for the culture to reasonably accept this minority view. (See #3)
5) I believe that governments, especially in California, New Jersey, and other places, has acted within their powers in protecting this minority viewpoint through domestic partnerships.
6) I believe that control over the definition of a word ultimately rests in the hands of the wider culture, and in a Democracy, as pertains to the government, the directly elected representatives of that culture.
7) I believe that the current brouhaha in CA involves not rights, but the definition of marriage.
8) Secularly, I support the "traditional" view of marriage because I support gender roles in general. I think dual-gendered parents are (all other things being equal) better at passing along gender roles than same sex parents, for obvious reasons.
8) I support gender-roles in general because there are significant differences between women and men, and I think that acknowledging the positive aspects of these gender roles and working to soften the negative aspects of gender roles is important in helping children become a part of civilization.
(Please note all the use of the phrase "in general.")
I think I discussed this at the beginning of this thread; it's okay if you don't agree.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, arguments? Anything? Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
I've said repeatedly, Kate, that if you're unable to conceive of the possibility you are wrong it is pointless for me to present you with arguments.
If you could concede that point, and if I deem the environment sufficiently civil, I would be glad to present my reasons for opposing the government redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you may believe you have good reasons for your disapproval. That doesn't change what I wrote.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, arguments? Anything? Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
I've said repeatedly, Kate, that if you're unable to conceive of the possibility you are wrong it is pointless for me to present you with arguments.
If you could concede that point, and if I deem the environment sufficiently civil, I would be glad to present my reasons for opposing the government redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.
I think that when denying rights to people, you should have arguments that you can at least articulate.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't very clear. Dkw is right, though. Even if there were a good but purely religious reason for denying someone human rights, it would not be sufficient reason for denying those rights.
Also, I have yet to see one.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that when denying rights to people, you should have arguments that you can at least articulate.
Are you trying to goad me? That seems a little juvenile.
Can you conceive that you could be wrong? If not, I will not be able to participate in a dialogue with you.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if, say, conservative Catholics were in the majority it would be reasonable for us to outlaw divorce or birth control? Chocolate during Lent?
Yes to the first two. Lent is a specific religious celebration, so outlawing chocolate just during Lent should probably be considered forcing people to participate in a Christian event.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will you participate in a dialogue with those of us who have said that we could be convinced we were wrong, with a good enough argument?
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that when denying rights to people, you should have arguments that you can at least articulate.
If someone actually has a "right" to something, then you probably shouldn't be denying it no matter how good of an argument you have.
But I don't think it has been proven that people have a "right" to marry whomever they want. Human rights are a special class of things that the majority is not allowed to vote away, but it is also a very limited class of things. You don't have a right to everything. For instance, although some people think they do, people do not have a right to buy gas for less than $3. And, although people sometimes think they do, people don't have a right to get an "A" in any college class that they do the homework for. The concept of basic human right is limited to things like the right to life, the right to liberty, etc.
So, the question then is, should we consider the right to marry whomever we want to be among those basic rights? If yes, why? If no, why not?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: SenojRetep, arguments? Anything? Any reason for messing with other people's lives?
I've said repeatedly, Kate, that if you're unable to conceive of the possibility you are wrong it is pointless for me to present you with arguments.
If you could concede that point, and if I deem the environment sufficiently civil, I would be glad to present my reasons for opposing the government redefining marriage to include homosexual couples.
Suppose for a moment that someone presented convincing evidence that continuing to allow interracial marriage is harmful to society as a whole. Suppose further that this evidence is corroborated in many independent unbiased studies, and as a result I am utterly convinced of its veracity. Should I then, in this scenario, support a ban on interracial marriage?
So Peter, why insist that Kate admit to the possibility of being wrong on an entirely irrelevant topic? I am willing to concede the possibility that I am wrong about the harmlessness of SSM. Would you present your reasons to me instead?
And Kate, I must admit, I am confused at your refusal to allow any possibility, no matter how small, that you might be wrong about whether SSM is harmful. I understand unconditionally asserting that it is a right and must be protected (and so I assert), but making unequivocal statements about the consequences to society seems to me to be arrogance at best. I would have expected a little more humility from you.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike: And Kate, I must admit, I am confused at your refusal to allow any possibility, no matter how small, that you might be wrong about whether SSM is harmful. I understand unconditionally asserting that it is a right and must be protected (and so I assert), but making unequivocal statements about the consequences to society seems to me to be arrogance at best. I would have expected a little more humility from you.
That isn't what I asserted. I wrote that it is inconceivable to me (and, yes, I do know what that word means) that the God I believe in would want SSM denied. I wrote that it would be more likely that God either doesn't exist or is entirely different than I know God to be.
More simply, if God is loving and just, God could not will what was neither.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That makes me feel better. Thanks for clarifying. I am guessing that I'm not the only one who has misread you in this thread, though.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Church's multi-million dollar push to pass legislation in a state where they have miniscule representation is not a moral fight, or a fight to protect the dictionary. it is advertising for the Church.
Compare the largest, most profitable, most material possession owning Churches, you will find they are BIG on conversion, and BIG on letting everyone know, that One of the Main Missions of Christ is to Forbid gays to be treated as human, and to let gays know forever and always, they're a special kind of sinner.
When logic collides with tradition, logic becomes evil.
Why should someone who divorced be allowed to marry again, unless they were cheated on? The Bible says that THESE people are NEVER allowed to marry again.
Why does'nt the Church protect marriage from this angle?
Larry King's 7th wife is FAR more of a mockery of Marriage and a commitment to Love than Two Women who live together for 30 years, wouldn't you say?
Fighting to NOT allow the States to recognize 2nd and 3rd marriages would Cost the Churches lots of money. It would be too hard. Many times Churches do what's best for the Growth of the Church, and not the people. Doubt it? Do a little research on Christian Churches from the birth of slavery to the end of slavery in America.
When a Church donates $50 million dollars to fight homosexuals, their doing it to buy publicity that they are 'good godly gay fighters.
"Are you white, heterosexual and angry that gays are making a mockery of God's word? Check us out!"
In America, the LDS Church is probably the LEAST diverse of them all. I've met black jews, white muslims, asian b'hais, hispanic athiests.
In the over 300 Mormons I've met personally on a day to day basis they have ALL been white. 100% of them. You can tell, their usually wearing a name tag, white shirt, slacks and are very happy to talk to you about their religion.
There is something suspicious about one of the least diverse religions in our country trying to suppress people who are not like they are, and their only proof is "It said it in a Magic Book and a Magic Gold Plate that Angels gave us."
In 13 pages of this thread, those who oppose Gay Marriage/Unions have come up with ZERO reasons for them to be treated differently other than "The Magic Book/Magic Gold Angel Plates" said so.
I have proof that 'fighting gays' in the name of Magic unprovable stuff is very, very, very profitable, and an excellent recruiting tool. Where is the proof of harm in gay marriage? Where is the justification or results of all the work done in the 'good godly fight against gays'? Other than all the temples, businesses, farms, ranches, insurance agencies, investment firms and mutual funds?
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO JUSTIFICATION coming from the Bible for a Church to pursue, gain and aquire $50 billion dollars of wealth, land and material things, Nor is there Biblical justification for a Church of Jesus to keep secrets or be so secretive.
The LDS Church got a trillion dollars worth of advertising for $50 million dollars. They've got a hell of a business instinct.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Can you imagine that you might one day regret [pro-SSM] legislation?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Nope. My faith assures me that God is just and loving and that, eventually, we will do the right thing
Here's where you asserted there is no possibility, no matter how small, that you might be wrong about whether SSM is harmful. You then clarified to say that you would sooner accept that God was not God than that His will on this issue could be other than what you believe it to be.
But, whatever; I realize that my insistence on you capitulating this point has limited meaningful dialogue I could be having with others. I'll just say one more time, though, that I find Kate's attitude fundamentally damaging to good faith dialogue, both at Hatrack and in our democratic society.
To Jhai's point, both she and Javert have said they would like to hear my argument. I probably won't be able to write much of it out today (I have meetings and then a birthday party for my daughter), but if this thread is still current next Monday (or, if I have time, before then) I will come back to it.
Preparatorily, though, would those of you who support changing marriage status to include homosexual couples view the increased tax burden on non-homosexuals as a demonstrable harm? Or, say, longer wait times for marriage licenses? That's obviously not my argument, but it effects it materially.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Preparatorily, though, would those of you who support changing marriage status to include homosexual couples view the increased tax burden on non-homosexuals as a demonstrable harm? Or, say, longer wait times for marriage licenses? That's obviously not my argument, but it effects it materially.
I wouldn't, myself. There doesn't appear to have been any substantive impact on either of those since our federal marriage statutes were modified a few years ago.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Preparatorily, though, would those of you who support changing marriage status to include homosexual couples view the increased tax burden on non-homosexuals as a demonstrable harm? Or, say, longer wait times for marriage licenses? That's obviously not my argument, but it effects it materially.
Sure. Just much like the Civil Rights Act cut down on the number of good bus seats that were available to white people. There were probably longer lines at the water fountains, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Preparatorily, though, would those of you who support changing marriage status to include homosexual couples view the increased tax burden on non-homosexuals as a demonstrable harm? Or, say, longer wait times for marriage licenses?
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it a demonstrable harm, but I'd agree that it could be considered an inconvenience, with the caveat that the exact same thing is true for letting LDS marry.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do you define "substantive?" Just saying, limited resources, either budgets decreased leading to fewer services, or taxes increased to make up for the lost revenue.
I'm really just wondering whether people consider competitive loss due to constrained resources to be a demonstrable harm or not.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As with any definition of substantive, it would have to depend on the actual properties of the situation. Waiting slightly longer for a marriage license does not seem to be substantive to me, nor does a slight increase in tax burden. And that's assuming that these would even happen.
Would you agree that if you accept the postulate that diverting resources away from certain people is a demonstrable harm, then you could say that allowing LDS to marry does demonstrative harm to others?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So here goes (in the nine minutes before I need to be to my meeting). Caveat: I'm going to present an analogy, in which I will use a voice that summarizes what I understand many of the pro-SSM arguments to be. Because I don't hold those beliefs, I may misrepresent them or present them in a less than sensitive matter. I apologize if that's the case; it's not my intent. ---- My name is Barack. No, not that one. I'm an 18-year-old black man from Chicago. I recently was admitted to the University of Michigan. However there's a snag; they claim I'm not black.
I'm trans-ethnic. I've always known I was black, but sometimes it's hard for society to accept me as such because of my skin color. People can be so racist sometimes; as if the color of my skin could determine my ethnicity. There are lots of "blacks" with skin color as light as mine, but since both my parents are from Italy, for some reason I can't be in the club.
When the administrations committee denied my blackhood, my acceptance was withdrawn. It seems there are some government privileges you can only receive if you meet their racist definition of what it means to be black.
I feel frustrated that my civil right of self-determination has been violated. They complain that maybe some white kids might claim trans-ethnicity to get admissions privileges, but I think it just comes down to my right to be what I am, which is black.
We trans-ethnics are a small minority, but we deserve our rights just like anyone else. Wasn't the constitution set up to protect people exactly like me from the tyranny of those whose racist beliefs would attempt to use the power of the government to infringe on minority rights?
<edit>In case it's not obvious, my question about demonstrable harm pertains to the admissions benefit. I don't know if people will consider the competitive loss in this case substantive or not. I think it's qualitatively similar to the losses I described before</edit>
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Peter, why don't you just wait until you can lay out your actual argument?
I personally wouldn't engage with someone who insisted on framing the discussion with "would you agree..." and "isn't it true..." preparatory questions. Especially if they signaled that those questions aren't the argument. It smells like a rhetorical trap, or like a cross examination. Don't see why either would be a good way to discuss the matter.
Edit: I wrote this before you last post. Yet, I still don't see your point re: SSM. You're talking about affirmative action now? BTW: any resource squeezes that come from additional marriages seem trivial and easily compensated for, in case that really is your argument. (Worst secular argument against SSM I've ever seen, if that's your argument.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand you, what you are saying is that gay people wanting to be married is like a non-black person claiming to be black. That doesn't seem to me to present any of the pro-SSM arguments well as much as it completely ignores them.
edit: I'll lay out the big one for me, to help you see why I think this.
I love (healthy) marriages. I love (healthy) families. I think that they are both incredibly beneficial things for the individuals in them, the people around them, and society as a whole. If there is any one thing I think we can do to make society better, it is to promote the growth of healthy marriages and by extension, families.
I see no reason why gay couples should be denied or at the very least severely disadvantaged when it comes to these incredibly valuable things. I see nothing about them or their relationships that makes them as a group incapable of having healthy marriages and families and I see nothing that would change the great benefits I see to bad things in cases where the marriage is same sex.
---
edit 2: And I'll note that if, say, a Baptist chooses to define marriage as only marriage that happen within their religion, your non-black black person analogy would apply to LDS as well.
posted
What I read Peter as saying is that letting gay people marry is giving them access to benefits they don't qualify for, and by doing so reducing the availability of those benefits for people who actually do qualify.
Even if I were to grant that letting gay people marry would have those effects, which I don't, I still would not consider this a valid argument. I do not see any reason except a sense of entitlement that would allow someone to say "If you let these two people marry they'll pay less taxes, which means my taxes will go up. Therefore you should not let them marry. But my friends and I still get to marry and get the tax benefits, that's different."
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if I were to grant that letting gay people marry would have those effects, which I don't, I still would not consider this a valid argument. I do not see any reason except a sense of entitlement that would allow someone to say "If you let these two people marry they'll pay less taxes, which means my taxes will go up. Therefore you should not let them marry. But my friends and I still get to marry and get the tax benefits, that's different."
I agree with this sentiment in this particular context, but not as a general rule.
For example, when I was in undergrad, there was a guy I know who complained that he was not allowed to take a work study job because his family was very rich and he didn't need any financial aid (he really didn't agree with our suggestion that he volunteer to work but not get paid). I think that's a clear case where, because he did not meet the requirements for the program, he should not be allowed to participate in it and that people (or rather one person) who the program was set up to help would have been materially harmed by his participation in it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
SenojRetep: I may point out that throwing an analogy to affirmative action into the mix is kinda messy, because there are those of us that oppose affirmative action on the basis that it *does* treat people differently by race.
Therefore, an argument that assumes that it is a positive thing to determine admission by race and then extends that metaphor to same-sex marriages is essentially cut-off at the very beginning.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I guess I am reminded of Neil A. Maxwell's words where he said, "Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted...This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.
Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened....
Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel."
I really would appreciate it if people would stop telling me because I support same sex marriage that I hate families. I love families. I even love the families that you are trying to destroy.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, yeah, I wouldn't put it forth as a general rule. There are some government programs that are only available to people who meet certain qualifications, such as welfare. But those are programs set up to help people who are in some way disadvantaged. Marriage is not.
Added: To use your example -- Work-study programs are there to help lower income students be able to afford college. The gym is there for everyone at the school to use, and is supported by everyone's tuition. If more people suddenly start using the gym, you might have to wait in line for a treadmill. But they have just as much right to be there as you do.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, I figured you meant it in the specific case, but I wanted to head off any idea that it was meant generally.
I think we're pretty much going to agree with the general argument that Peter is trying to make, but very much disagree with his application in this particular case.
edit: I like your added expansion. That's very much where I was going.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
On top of the blatant prejudice, what offends me almost as much is the vast resources churches have been pouring into campaigning against this, in both money and manpower.
What would Jesus do? Certainly not spend multiple fortunes trying to prevent people from having equal rights, when there are oppressed and dying people both at home and all over the world who could have used that money and effort to save their children from death by starvation or had a home to sleep in.
It really disgusts me when religious institutions put this kind of wealth to use for such a foul purpose, when they claim to be supporting Christian ideals of charity and love.
Of all the BETTER things they could devote their time and money to, fixing real problems, which everyone can agree are tragic situations like poverty, disease, war, and hunger, that they choose to use their wealth to put down a minority group speaks volumes about their real beliefs.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:It really disgusts me when religious institutions put this kind of wealth to use for such a foul purpose, when they claim to be supporting Christian ideals of charity and love.
From their rhetoric, it seems clear that at least some of these institutions - the LDS church in particular - see SSM as something that will destroy society. They are a little unspecific about what the destruction would look like. I suspect that their version of a destroyed society may appear to be a utopia to some of us. In any case, if you believed an atomic bomb was going to go off in the middle of our city, would you be motivated to dedicating resources to finding and disarming the bomb, or to feeding starving kids in Africa?
Their behavior, in this respect (thought not others), is at least internally consistent.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
