quote: Instead, the question we need to ask ourselves, on both counts, is why has this feature (of our bodies, or of our culture) survived until today? What survival value did an opposable thumb have, which made it so that the only surviving primates on our branch of the evolutionary tree are the ones who possessed it? Similarly, what survival value does marriage have, such that all of the dominant human cultures on earth currently practice it, or have practiced it very recently?
I am uncomfortable with that approach as a reason to deny gay marriage. I see it as no different then asking what value slavery has because it has been practiced from the beginning and is still a world wide phenomenon today--including child sex slaves in Asia.
I am not equating denying gay marriage with slavery, but I am saying a more appropriate question might be "why is it taking so long to allow gay marriage?"
Why did it take civilized society so long to condemn slavery? Does that fact that it took so long to end slavery give "survival value" as a reason to hold onto slavery?
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no social justification for denying gays union rights. It is only biblical.
If we legislate all the Bibles' Rules, then, technically, isn't it ok for Muslims to kill infidels? Their holy book tells them it is ok, so it is ok for societal law too, right?
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a funny letter in Ft. Worth Star Telegram today.
The writer wrote that people claim to be christian but support gay rights or abortion rights, making them not real Christians. He said that we should let the Real Christians judge who the Real Christians are.
My mouth dropped agape. I thought only God could judge.
I guess it must have been modern divine revelation.
Posts: 262 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:If women have the same rights as men, why not call them men?
Legally, I believe we call them "persons," except where there is a meaningful legal distinction between the genders. In fact, in some cases, corporations can even be "persons." What meaningful legal distinction would you maintain between "marriage" and "civil union" to justify the different terminology?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: There is no social justification for denying gays union rights. It is only biblical.
If we legislate all the Bibles' Rules, then, technically, isn't it ok for Muslims to kill infidels? Their holy book tells them it is ok, so it is ok for societal law too, right?
Well, I don't think the Bible says anything about Muslims, killing infidels or not. But I know what you're driving at.
But if we're legislating the Bible, we really need to get rid of all that evil shellfish.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Unicorn Feelings: There is no social justification for denying gays union rights. It is only biblical.
If we legislate all the Bibles' Rules, then, technically, isn't it ok for Muslims to kill infidels? Their holy book tells them it is ok, so it is ok for societal law too, right?
Well, I don't think the Bible says anything about Muslims, killing infidels or not. But I know what you're driving at.
But if we're legislating the Bible, we really need to get rid of all that evil shellfish.
OK I'll try to not nitpick, but honestly I get extremely tired of people quoting rules contained in the Law of Moses and extrapolating them to mean that somehow people from the Judeo-Christian background cherry pick what rules we adhere to.
From one Christian's perspective. The Law of Moses is just what it claims to be, a law given to Moses for the benefit of the Israelite nation. There were prophets, commandments, miracles, priesthood, desciples thousands of years before Moses was even born. There is a distinct difference in purpose between, "Thou Shalt Not Steal" and "Thou shalt not eat shrimp." One commands us to adopt Godlike attributes, the other forces us to more frequently remember God in our doings. Because the Israelites from the get go had a hard time obeying God's more fundamental rules, the Law of Moses was devised as a way to keep them in constant remembrance of their God. It's hard to forget God when you have to keep kosher.
Eternal truths such as, God is Love, or God wishes us to help those less fortunate, or God finds sin abhorrent, and God has a plan for all mankind are true regardless of additional commandments God gives us. The Ten Commandments are Godlike attribute commandments rather than "remember me" commandments. In purpose the Law of Moses would prepare the Israelites to ultimately accept the Messiah and obey the higher more fundamental truths He would reveal unto them.
Jesus came, formed His church, revealed the gospel, fulfilled the Law of Moses, left the church in the hands of the apostles, granted them revelation as they needed it, (see Acts onward) and we will leave it there rather than dabbling in Mormon extensions.
The New Testament clearly discusses homosexuality. Paul mentions it more than once in completely negative terms. The argument that Jesus did not himself mention it, is quite weak. Jesus did not touch on many things, leaving that to the apostles. Peter being instructed by God to stop keeping kosher and to proclaim that commandment is a perfect example of this. The apostles meeting together, discussing, and ultimately being commanded by God to stop requiring circumcision is also an example of this.
Some Christians do seem to think that keeping Kosher just to be safe is a wise thing, I don't. But please stop suggesting that because Christians don't observe the law of Moses which prophets before Moses didn't observe, and which Jesus said was no long necessary, that we are somehow the Jewish Lite religion.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I understand your argument, and it even makes sense.
Unfortunately, Jesus also said this:
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. " - Matthew 5:18-19
Am I wrong in looking at this and concluding that Jesus is saying you have to follow ALL the laws, even the tiny ones?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am uncomfortable with that approach as a reason to deny gay marriage.
It's not a reason to deny gay marriage, and I wasn't trying to use it that way. It's not even a complete approach; it's just a question. But it's a question that I think people are too quick to dismiss or give quick answers to, based on their existing opinions. I wish I knew more about the answer to this question, without partisan bias making me doubt the answers on either side.
Questions like this, surrounding this topic, are extraordinarily difficult to find satisfactory answers for, because everyone involved seems to have a firm stake in getting "right" answers that either bolster their side or stave off criticism and accusations of heresy or bigotry.
I don't think we know enough yet about the causes of homosexuality, for instance. And I think that, in part, this is because there is only one "right answer" allowed on either side of the discussion. It's hard to know whose conclusions to trust, when there are such strong political consequences attached to every answer.
Personally, I suspect that there is a mix of genetic and environmental factors, with different proportions in each individual. I don't think that because of any particular study, but rather because it seems like every human trait works that way, so why not this one? But I worry about saying that out loud for fear that someone will take it wrong and flame me (It's happened before ...)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thankfully, America isn't a theocracy, so what the Bible says has no impact on how we make laws which ... wait a second!
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till it all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. " - Matthew 5:18-19
Am I wrong in looking at this and concluding that Jesus is saying you have to follow ALL the laws, even the tiny ones?
Most Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus completely fulfilled the Law. So at the time Jesus was speaking they still needed to follow every part of the Law of Moses. After the Resurrection the Law was replaced by the higher law taught by Jesus and revealed to his Apostles.
We have Two "Tills" in that scripture. "Till Heaven and Earth Pass Away" and "Till it all be fulfilled." My best interpretation is that he meant it would be followed either till the world ended or the Law was Fulfilled, which ever came first.The only way to be sure of the exact meaning would be for God to clarify, requiring revelation.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till it all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. " - Matthew 5:18-19
Am I wrong in looking at this and concluding that Jesus is saying you have to follow ALL the laws, even the tiny ones?
Most Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus completely fulfilled the Law. So at the time Jesus was speaking they still needed to follow every part of the Law of Moses. After the Resurrection the Law was replaced by the higher law taught by Jesus and revealed to his Apostles.
We have Two "Tills" in that scripture. "Till Heaven and Earth Pass Away" and "Till it all be fulfilled." My best interpretation is that he meant it would be followed either till the world ended or the Law was Fulfilled, which ever came first.The only way to be sure of the exact meaning would be for God to clarify, requiring revelation.
As he wasn't specific, and unless the translation reveals something else, 'all' certainly seems like 'when I come back at the end of the world', as opposed to 'when I come back in a few weeks'.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I understand your argument, and it even makes sense.
Unfortunately, Jesus also said this:
"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. " - Matthew 5:18-19
Am I wrong in looking at this and concluding that Jesus is saying you have to follow ALL the laws, even the tiny ones?
I admit the wording is alittle ackward but I still read it as, "Until the end of time, not one detail of the law can be be omitted, until it is fulfilled. He who teaches less than this, is wrong."
The law when given was binding until God himself fulfilled it, had Jesus not come when he did the Jews would still be expected to keep the law, and indeed many do now in obedience. Interestingly enough in the Book of Mormon, the people in America through divine intervention were apprised of Jesus' birth in Israel, and several of them began teaching that the law was fulfilled and therefore no longer necessary. The heads of the church had to discuss with them why they were wrong and explain that until Jesus' mission was complete the law was still in full force.
The disciples of the New Testament had the opposite problem, believing parts or all of the Law of Moses were eternal truths unto themselves, and that they should continue to observe them. This is why Peter was hesitant to take the gospel to the gentiles, as up to that point virtually all Christians were also Jews. To demonstrate to him that Jesus' gospel was a new direction directed at everybody, Peter was given the vision of a list of lawfully unclean animals, and commanded to eat them. The dual message was that Moses law was fulfilled in Jesus and that a new higher and more inclusive law had been revealed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As he wasn't specific, and unless the translation reveals something else, 'all' certainly seems like 'when I come back at the end of the world', as opposed to 'when I come back in a few weeks'.
As I said it needs revelation from God to clarify. As far as the LDS view on it Jesus said in the Book of Mormon:
"4 Behold, I say unto you that the law is fulfilled that was given unto Moses. 5 Behold, I am he that gave the law, and I am he who covenanted with my people Israel; therefore, the law in me is fulfilled, for I have come to fulfill the law; therefore it hath an end. 6 Behold, I do not destroy the prophets, for as many as have not been fulfilled in me, verily I say unto you, shall all be fulfilled. 7 And because I said unto you that old things have passed away, I do not destroy that which hath been spoken concerning things which are to come. 8 For behold, the covenant which I have made with my people is not all fulfilled; but the law which was given unto Moses hath an end in me." - 3 Nephi 15
Again I say the only way for someone to know is to ask God themselves.
Posts: 147 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I hope people find it helpful in looking at the real, and not just the sensationalised version of, the issues.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recently attended a symposium on Prop 8 sponsered by Chapman University school of Law. It was no one-sided debate--voices present ranged from conservative constitutional law professor and talk show host Hugh Hewitt to David C. Codell, one of the lawyers who brought the marriage cases to the California supreme court, and whose work with the LGBT community goes back to fighting to allow Gay-Straight alliances to meet on school grounds.
My conclusion at the end of the hours of discussion and debate were basically that, well, the whole thing is up for discussion and debate.
Thurston's paper is simply another arguement--it is no more the final word than any of the other people I heard speak that day, at greater length than Thurston's paper.
For example, Codell made a compelling case that, rather than being the huge leap it is made out to be, the California decision was actually just one tiny, final step down a path that the court had been treading for years. Not an activist decision, but a recognition of the implications of decisions it had made in previous years.
Hewitt, on the other hand, made an equally compelling case that it was, in fact, a bombshell, and that the TNT was the court's definition of "Strict Scrutiny." In order to get it to apply in this case, they had to create a new definition of the term that had never been used previously, and that may have implications beyond the current same-sex marriage battle, but that the court failed to consider as it used such a drastic measure to create the result it desired.
Her book trod a middle ground between both extremes--it does not deny that there are conflicts between religious liberty and legal same sex marriage, the way that Thurston's essay tries to--rather, it tries to suggest that there will be hope for religious liberty, even though it might be leveraged against by legal same sex marriage.
As an example, she draws parallels with abortion. Following Roe V. Wade, abortion was not only legal, but considered a right--it was not long after Roe that many Catholic owned hospitals were sued for not wanting to perform abortions. Also, it placed a burden on religous doctors in non-church owned hospitals who did not wish to participate in what they personally considered murder.
Laws had to be written and comprimises had to be made in order to accommodate both the laws and the religious beliefs of the hospitals and doctors. The laws were passed, of course, and doctors who did not wish to perform abortions were never actually required to perform them. The exceptions were specifically carved out in an effort to preserve both the will of the court and individual religious liberty.
There are similar situations here. Will a catholic county clerk be required to file a marriage liscence for a same sex couple? Will a church owned property (like a mountain retreat) have to allow same sex couples to rent their property for weddings? But then, what if the same sex couple doesn't know what alternate facility will hold same sex weddings?
There are solutions, of course. Another analogy Wilson draws is that of birth control--there are laws that require that if doctors do not offer certain forms of birth control, they have to make patients who desire it aware of where else they might obtain it.
So in short, Thurston's arguments are as dismissive as he's saying his opponents are sensational. There actually are legitimate issues here, and while most people agree that most likely no Catholic priest will ever be required by the state to marry a gay couple, that doesn't mean there aren't implications for the schools, for churches, and for individuals, or that if Prop 8 fails to pass, people shouldn't be as eager to help preserve the religious freedom of the people of California through these types of compromises as they are to extend the freedom to marry to gay couples.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Catseye1979: Most Christians believe that the resurrection of Jesus completely fulfilled the Law.
I've never understood what that's supposed to mean. I mean, the law is the law. You don't "fulfill" a law; you obey it. Or disobey it, but either way, fulfilling a law is like asking "how tall is red?" It doesn't even make sense syntactically.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Christians believe that the Law of Moses was given in order to point peoples' minds toward God, and toward Christ who would redeem people from sin and from death. When that redemption was completed through Christ's atonement and resurrection, the law was "fulfilled--" its ends had been met, and another "law" was put in place.
I expect that when Christ comes again, the law of obedience will also be replaced-- CS Lewis touches on this in the Last Battle, when Aslan says to...Lucy, I think, "You cannot now want for any wrong thing."
That's how I look at it, anyway.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, while I'm saying unpopular things, I'm rather tired of the false comparison to race relations. Demonizing racism has no parallel to demonizing anti-same-sex-marriage people, because the former was always a personal judgment, while the latter is frequently a moral judgment.
That isn't true. Religions have definitely assigned (negative) meaning to the colour of a person's skin and had doctrines and policies that were racist. My own personal experience is mostly with the LDS (Mormon) faith, but it is apparent in the history of other churches, too.
quote:I think homosexual sex is wrong, but I don't hate people that engage in it. I think getting drunk is wrong too, but I don't hate alcoholics. My dad is one. Or am I just bigoted against alcoholics too?
Depends. Do you support taking away the civil rights of alcoholics? Because hate isn't really the issue here. A simple absence of hate does not prove someone is not a bigot or does not act in a biassed manner.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you support taking away the civil rights of alcoholics?
What are you calling civil rights?
I support bartenders who don't serve alcohol to people they know are alcoholics; I support grocery stores, liquor stores, and other business owners who discriminate against people they know are alcoholics by not selling them alcohol.
That said, I support the right of alcoholics to vote, to speak their mind, to meet with like-minded peers.
Marriage was declared a civil right back in the...er...60s, I think, when laws making it illegal for mixed race marriages to take place were struck down. (Someone else is going to have to quote chapter and verse; my google-fu is not strong this morning).
Even though it is a civil right, society has set bounds on that right-- minors cannot marry adults except in certain situations, for example. Obviously, there is some judging taking place within this discussion; one relationship is valued, while another is shunned. The attitude carries forth into legislation.
It is my contention that such cultural appraisal is completely correct and valuable in order to protect personal and social structures in place within the culture.
(Which says nothing about the specifics of SSM-- I note merely that the people have empowered the government to enact their will in regards to marriage.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: [QB]It could be argued that the drive on the part of children to have both a mother and a father is just as biological as the desire of either sexual orientation to be attracted to a certain gender...
Kids deserve to be able to have, if at all possible, a mom and a dad. Each brings a unique perspective to the child, because men and women are different.
The unique perspective that my parents brought to my life has less to do with the fact that one is male and one is female and more to do with the fact that my dad is an extrovert and talented athlete who likes to sing and play the clown, while my mum is an introvert who feels really strongly about education and is good with money.
Children benefit from having role models of both sexes. Those people do not have to be their parents.
In my experience, children don't exhibit any kind of biological drive to have parents of different sexes. They do however have a deep, irrevocable need for parents who are loving, consistent and responsible. Last time I checked these characteristics were not divided by gender.
quote:But at least, by preserving the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman, we're still acknowledging as a society that we recognize that we're putting the rights of children first. QB]
No. You know, this argument really is only relevent to adoption by gay parents (and even then it's a weak argument). It has nothing to do with the definition of marriage.
Plus, by that reasoning we would prohibit divorce (or remove children after it occurs), force single mothers to give their kids up for adoption and the example you gave of your brother coming to stay and help raise the kids after your wife died would be unacceptable - if you didn't have a sister or other female prepared to come and help, too bad, your kids would have to go to some complete family. Stupid, right? Yep. Imagine if your children were taken away just because you didn't share your life with a woman. It really misses the point of what parents provide emotionally and otherwise for their kids, right?
As does your argument.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: There are similar situations here. Will a catholic county clerk be required to file a marriage liscence for a same sex couple? Will a church owned property (like a mountain retreat) have to allow same sex couples to rent their property for weddings? But then, what if the same sex couple doesn't know what alternate facility will hold same sex weddings?
While I don't think that churches should be required to host same sex marriages, I don't understand why there would be a problem with a Catholic county clerk filing same sex marriage licenses. If same sex marriage is legalized then there will be a clear difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. Would filing a same sex marriage license violate the clerk's religious beliefs? If it doesn't then I don't see why said clerk would have a problem.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by chosha: In my experience, children don't exhibit any kind of biological drive to have parents of different sexes. They do however have a deep, irrevocable need for parents who are loving, consistent and responsible. Last time I checked these characteristics were not divided by gender.
Judging by the nature of other apes, it seems like there is a biological drive for a mother but not for a father. The desire for a father may just be a product of our culture.
EDIT: I don't mean to present this idea as if it were true. I only view it as plausible.
EDIT2: In a similar manner, adopted children probably don't have a biological drive to find their real parents.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Children benefit from having role models of both sexes. Those people do not have to be their parents.
It's true that good role models don't need to be parents.
It's also true that when the role models are parents, the example they set is generally much more powerful.
The conversation tends to get a bit dodgy in these areas-- IIRC, it's been noted that the lack of engaged father figures in the lives of young minority males tends to lead to higher crime and poverty down the road. There's been no study, as far as I know, about the effects of a motherless/female-free culture on the general population. Largely, I think, because our society pushes child rearing disproportionately on the mother. (I'd love to read the data if it exists, though)
Of course, there are many more complications with the issue than just the lack of a present, same-gendered, familial role model. Of course poverty and environment play parts in it.
BUT-- gender modeling based on parental example does have an enormous effect on children. I don't think it's fair to downplay it, chosha.
There is data that shows that children raised in same-sex marriages don't tend to suffer socially or psychologically.
Admitting that does not necessarily admit that widespread same-gendered parenting will prove as effective as dual-gendered parenting (in terms of teaching acceptable gender-roles or gender-relations). It may be something society just has to fall into, and muddle through.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: So in short, Thurston's arguments are as dismissive as he's saying his opponents are sensational. There actually are legitimate issues here, and while most people agree that most likely no Catholic priest will ever be required by the state to marry a gay couple, that doesn't mean there aren't implications for the schools, for churches, and for individuals, or that if Prop 8 fails to pass, people shouldn't be as eager to help preserve the religious freedom of the people of California through these types of compromises as they are to extend the freedom to marry to gay couples.
Thurston is not dismissing the issues. He is revealing the non-issues that are being touted as issues in order to encourage people to vote from a place of fear and ignorance.
As for the last half of the quoted text above, what you're basically saying is that people shouldn't be eager to promote religious freedom if it means that they will actually have to respect the religous freedom of others and not just pretend to support it in order to protect the rights they want to claim for themselves. Or at least that's how it sounds. Religious freedom, sure, but whoa, no compromise, no actual tolerance of other people's beliefs.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Will a catholic county clerk be required to file a marriage liscence for a same sex couple?
Probably. Why is that a problem? A Catholic county clerk who refuses to file a divorce decree now, despite the fact that divorce is against their religion, would probably lose their job. Is that a violation of the clerk's religious freedom? I don't think so. Do you?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you support taking away the civil rights of alcoholics?
What are you calling civil rights?
It's not important; it wasn't my point. The point was that the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' argument is relevent to religious practice. The issue at hand is civil rights, deciding in that context whether or not someone is displaying bigotry is determined by the actions they take to protect or deny civil rights based on bias. You don't have to hate someone to discriminate against them - you just have to deem their rights to be less important than your viewpoint. After all, no-one is actually threatening to take away any rights from straight people here. It's not gay rights vs straight rights. And people should stop pretending that it is.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: Btw, I nominate chosha for being the lurkiest lurker.
I used to be on Hatrack all the time, but ages ago (in the early days with the nick 'enjeeo'). Recently I read something about OSC and it reminded me of Hatrack and here I am.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:After all, no-one is actually threatening to take away any rights from straight people here.
The wiki aspectre linked to has some interesting commentary from judges as to why Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same-sex couples, and why, therefore, there is some discrimination.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The wiki aspectre linked to has some interesting commentary from judges as to why Loving v. Virginia does not apply to same-sex couples, and why, therefore, there is some discrimination.
I agree that it's arguable that Loving v. Virginia is not an applicable legal precident. That is not an obstacle to those engaged extra-legal discourse about civil rights and justice. The question is not "Why were the laws that Loving overturned unconstitutional?" but "Why were they wrong?"
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
enjeeo! Welcome back. I was just thinking about you the other day -- one of our son's stuffed dogs is named NGO and when he asked for NGO I thought, "I wonder what ever happened to enjeeo?"
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:The question is not "Why were the laws that Loving overturned unconstitutional?" but "Why were they wrong?"
Isn't that a question for the legislature rather than for a group of people who cannot be directly influenced by cultural participants?
EDIT: Thinking here of SCOTUS; I imagine state courts are chosen according to state laws, which vary.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Even though it is a civil right, society has set bounds on that right-- minors cannot marry adults except in certain situations, for example.
Marriage is a legal contract. Contracts are only valid when the parties are able to consent freely, and the reason minors can't get married is because it's presumed that minors can't consent to something they don't understand, or can't consent freely when being pressured by an adult.
It has nothing to do with putting bounds on marriage, it has to do with treating a contract like a contract.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Marriage is not a "contract." It has contract-like aspects to it, but it is not a contract. There are many bounds placed on marriage that are not placed on other contracts.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Isn't that a question for the legislature rather than for a group of people who cannot be directly influenced by cultural participants?
EDIT: Thinking here of SCOTUS; I imagine state courts are chosen according to state laws, which vary.
If we're talking about California, which I believe we are, then there are a few points to be made:
* The California Supreme Court is elected.
* It is the entire purpose of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws. That is all they do. Saying that it's not their place is like saying a traffic cop has no business telling you that you're driving too fast.
* The California legislature twice passed legislation legalizating SSM. The governator vetoed the legislation, saying that he wanted the courts to decide the matter.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: It is the entire purpose of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of laws. That is all they do. Saying that it's not their place is like saying a traffic cop has no business telling you that you're driving too fast.
OH! I agree. I thought you were making the mistake of saying that the court should determine what was right and wrong, rather than what is constitutional/unconstitutional.
quote:OH! I agree. I thought you were making the mistake of saying that the court should determine what was right and wrong, rather than what is constitutional/unconstitutional.
I was trying to say, though apparently not very clearly, that in terms of discussion between you, me, and others, the importance of Loving is not it's status as legal precident, but the concepts of justice and equality that it addresses. It's also a good example of the court acting rightly despite the lack of popular support for the judgement.
quote:Also, I didn't realize we were talking about CA's supreme court...I'm not sure what they have to do with Loving v. VA, or federal law.
Well, the CA Supreme Court is subject to the US Supreme Court, though as I've now said a couple times, the legal precident isn't what I think is important about Loving.
quote:Can you explain why you feel that's what's being discussed?
The title of the thread is "California Proposition 8". The most visible contest on this issue is occuring right now in California.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Marriage is not a "contract." It has contract-like aspects to it, but it is not a contract. There are many bounds placed on marriage that are not placed on other contracts.
For instance, parents cannot enter into marriages on behalf of their minor children.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The title of the thread is "California Proposition 8". The most visible contest on this issue is occuring right now in California.
1) Thread drift.
2) We weren't discussing California's Supreme Court; I even made it clear I was applying my comments to SCOTUS alone.
quote:the importance of Loving is not it's status as legal precident, but the concepts of justice and equality that it addresses. It's also a good example of the court acting rightly despite the lack of popular support for the judgement.
So you ARE making the mistake of allowing judges to assign morality (rather than legality) to their judgments.
If SCOTUS was elected, I'd have less problems with the idea. As political appointees who cannot be easily held accountable, though, I've got enormous reservations about this.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you ARE making the mistake of allowing judges to assign morality (rather than legality) to their judgments.
NO! Ugh.
I'm saying two things:
1) When we, as a individuals, discuss what is right and wrong, legal precident is irrelevant. The Supreme Court could rule slavery to be Constitutional and I could still say that the civil rights of slaves were being wrongly denied. Loving is a good seed for this discussion.
2) The popularity of a court decision is not relevant. A supreme court can make a dramatically unpopular decision that is still right as a matter of law. Every time I see "...against the will of the people" tacked on to a reference to the CA Supreme Court decision I wince. They might as well have said "...despite the fact that 12 is not a prime number." Loving is good seed for this discussion as well.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Children benefit from having role models of both sexes. Those people do not have to be their parents.
It's true that good role models don't need to be parents.
It's also true that when the role models are parents, the example they set is generally much more powerful.
The conversation tends to get a bit dodgy in these areas-- IIRC, it's been noted that the lack of engaged father figures in the lives of young minority males tends to lead to higher crime and poverty down the road. There's been no study, as far as I know, about the effects of a motherless/female-free culture on the general population. Largely, I think, because our society pushes child rearing disproportionately on the mother. (I'd love to read the data if it exists, though)
Of course, there are many more complications with the issue than just the lack of a present, same-gendered, familial role model. Of course poverty and environment play parts in it.
BUT-- gender modeling based on parental example does have an enormous effect on children. I don't think it's fair to downplay it, chosha.
There is data that shows that children raised in same-sex marriages don't tend to suffer socially or psychologically.
Admitting that does not necessarily admit that widespread same-gendered parenting will prove as effective as dual-gendered parenting (in terms of teaching acceptable gender-roles or gender-relations). It may be something society just has to fall into, and muddle through.
Firstly, if you imagine I'm downplaying anything for the sake of making the argument, be assured I'm not. As to whether I'm downplaying the importance of gender modeling based on parental example...I think maybe I am, and I don't think I'm being unfair in doing so.
You know, I didn't really want to resort to the much-used argument that gay parents can be great and straight parents sometimes suck, but when it boils down to it, I think it's the most relevant point. What makes a great parent ISN'T their gender. I actually know great straight and gay parents AND appalling straight and gay parents, so I feel really strongly that a conversation about 2-sex vs 1-sex parenting partnerships is in many ways irrelevant to the real world that children experience.
Did you notice that the stats you quoted at the beginning were about 'ENGAGED father FIGURES'? Not merely a boy having a father, but rather a boy having a role model, a father FIGURE (whether his biological father or not) who is engaged in his life and upbringing. An engaged father figure can be found in the lives of many children with no father at home.
To me there's a parallel between this and overseas adoption. Parents adopting a Chinese child don't need to be Chinese to raise her properly, but many parents in that situation would choose to inform their child about their heritage and make that crucial aspect of who she is a part of all their lives.
Gender, however it is interpreted by the individual, is also a crucial aspect of our identity, but same-sex parents are just as capable as single parents/divorced parents and other non-'one man, one woman' parenting teams at ensuring that their child has roles models of their own sex/gender in their lives. In other words, the issue of good gender role models is not at all confined to the context of same-sex marriage, parenting or adoption and I therefore find it irrelevant to the issue of Proposition 8 and gay parenting generally.
I will take this further by saying that gender modelling based on one's parents is not always a positive developmental experience. Some parents are terrible gender role models who teach their children to think of themselves as limited/trapped by their gender or worse still teach them to be selfish or manipulative based on gender stereotypes. I see my mother as a very positive role model generally, but my interpretation of what it means to be female is only partly based on my mother and there are some parts of her interpretation that I have consciously rejected. Gender roles are not static and they are not uniform. Some of the most important and influential female role models in my life are not only not my mother, but not even members of my extended family.
I do think children need role models of their own sex, but the truth is that there are so many parents out there screwing up their responsibilities to their children in terms of love and consistency and appropriate sacrifice of their time and talents for the sake of their children, that the issue of gender modelling pales in comparison. I find it difficult to place importance on it when there are simply more important issues at hand.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
To me there's a parallel between this and overseas adoption. Parents adopting a Chinese child don't need to be Chinese to raise her properly, but many parents in that situation would choose to inform their child about their heritage and make that crucial aspect of who she is a part of all their lives.
Not like they have a lot of choice to inform them or not, unless they're from Xinjiang or something and can pass as white Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by docmagik: Will a catholic county clerk be required to file a marriage liscence for a same sex couple?
Probably. Why is that a problem? A Catholic county clerk who refuses to file a divorce decree now, despite the fact that divorce is against their religion, would probably lose their job. Is that a violation of the clerk's religious freedom? I don't think so. Do you?
I didn't notice any answer to this.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know, I didn't really want to resort to the much-used argument that gay parents can be great and straight parents sometimes suck, but when it boils down to it, I think it's the most relevant point.
You shouldn't. It's a strawman.
quote: What makes a great parent ISN'T their gender. I actually know great straight and gay parents AND appalling straight and gay parents, so I feel really strongly that a conversation about 2-sex vs 1-sex parenting partnerships is in many ways irrelevant to the real world that children experience.
:nods:
I understand. I don't know that your conclusion is valid when we're discussing large populations, though. It COULD be, but there's no data on it. Like I said-- it may be something society has to muddle into and out of.
quote:Gender, however it is interpreted by the individual, is also a crucial aspect of our identity, but same-sex parents are just as capable as single parents/divorced parents and other non-'one man, one woman' parenting teams at ensuring that their child has roles models of their own sex/gender in their lives.
This is a nitpick, but INHERENTLY, same-sex couples are not as capable of providing gender role models for children of the opposite sex. It may be easy for them to do so; it may not even really matter (to the child's mental health) that they do so; but I think it apparent that there's an imbalance.
quote:I find it difficult to place importance on it when there are simply more important issues at hand.
I think that enough people disagree with you strongly enough to elevate this problem to "important."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: This is a nitpick, but INHERENTLY, same-sex couples are not as capable of providing gender role models for children of the opposite sex. It may be easy for them to do so; it may not even really matter (to the child's mental health) that they do so; but I think it apparent that there's an imbalance.
True, but the same is true the other way around. For example, I grew up with one maternal figure. Tova is growing up with two. Maybe she'll be a better mother than I am, because she's growing up with more than one maternal role model. Maybe people with one mother and one father are missing out on that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Why do you consider this a strawman, Scott? Many, many people argue against gay marriage precisely "for the sake of the children." If it turns out that having two parents of the same sex is no worse for a child than, say, having parents of a different sex who happen to smoke or drive poorly or make less than $50K a year -- and I don't think it's even that bad, based on the studies out there -- doesn't that invalidate this part of the argument?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(It's happened before ...)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
I used to be on Hatrack all the time, but ages ago (in the early days with the nick 'enjeeo'). Recently I read something about OSC and it reminded me of Hatrack and here I am.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
