quote:No, but being compelled to talk to them when I don't feel my children are prepared for them is.
Gay people exist regardless of the existence of SSM, they form (state recognized in many cases) relationships regardless of SSM, and they even marry in other states and countries regardless of whether they are permitted to do so in yours.
It's something that will come up at some point. Even living in a conservative part of Utah my children are aware of homosexuality. We've discussed the topic and it wasn't particularly hard to do. "Instead of a Mommy and a Daddy, they have two Mommies." It's not rocket science.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, a moderately increased likelihood of a difficult conversation with your children is definitely a reason to oppose extending protections that will enable a substantial portion of the population to have stronger families, see and make decisions for each other in the hospital during emergencies without complicated legal maneuvering, and other things that if taken away in the least part would lead to a revolt by people who have been able to enjoy the benefits of the legal institution of marriage.
You know those times when you can substitute interracial marriage for SSM and the argument looks ridiculous? This is especially one of those times. Can you imagine how you would look down on someone who said interracial marriage would harm him because legalizing it would mean he had to talk about the existence of such relationships with his children?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except there's an order of difference. Reinforcing the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is directly and immediately harmful. Allowing homosexual relationships to be recognized by society is a hypothetical future harm, and does no direct harm to anyone opposed to the concept.
Reinforcing the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is mostly only directly and immediately harmful according to SSM advocates. Similarly, undermining the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is directly and immediately harmful according to many SSM opponents (for various reasons, including because it encourages people to engage in supposedly sinful relationships which would directly harm them morally, because it would supposedly teach children the wrong lessons, because it would supposedly damamge traditions, etc.) There is no order of difference between the directness of either harm.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
If we're defining harm as only those bad things you can't avoid, then I don't believe there are any harms at all. Anyone "harmed" by Prop 8 opposition is completely within their rights to leave the state to get those benefits elsewhere.
Kate-
I'm copping out? Pot, meet kettle. How about you list the ways you've hurt people with your well intentioned support for SSM.
Sure. Here's my list:
1. I've told people on the internet what I think of them.
2. Nope. Just the one.
Now will you answer my questions? As a remiinder:
quote: Yes, you, like many other parents, have to discuss with your children that not everyone agrees with your views. Can you for a moment imagine the conversations that SS couple have to have with their children?
Have they taken away your legal right to have a family?
And to return to my original point, do you really think that the "incivility" that people have suffered (and, again, I wish that were not so) has come anywhere near the "incivility" shown to homosexuals? Really?
posted
"Reinforcing the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is only directly and immediately harmful according to SSM advocates."
Well, and scientific research that seems to indicates that gays are at a much higher risk of mental health disorders, suicide, et al, in large part because of lack of social acceptance.
On the other hand, there's no evidence coming from places that HAVE equitable marriage that there's any measurable harm that results.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:encourages people to engage in supposedly sinful relationships which would directly harm them morally, because it would supposedly teach children the wrong lessons, because it would supposedly damamge traditions
These are all great examples of indirect harm. None of them are direct harms, however.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:These are all great examples of indirect harm. None of them are direct harms, however.
They are exactly as direct/indirect as your example of "hurting people by re-inforcing the second class nature of homosexual realtionships."
quote:On the other hand, there's no evidence coming from places that HAVE equitable marriage that there's any measurable harm that results.
The Bible is one piece of evidence that many SSM opponents accept as very very strong. Not to mention the word of people who have supposedly communicated with God.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Ya ever notice that the constitution makes no statements on marriage whatsoever? Cause it's not actually a right. Did you know that? "
Actually, its been recognized as a fundamental right for over 50 years. Constitution doesn't list all the rights we have, it actually says so right in the document.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are exactly as direct/indirect as your example of "hurting people by re-inforcing the second class nature of homosexual realtionships."
Not at all. "re-inforcing the second class nature of homosexual realtionships" refers to a broad range of specific and direct harms, which range from practical legal matters such as probate law, medical power of attorney, and child custody to mental health problems and workplace discrimination due to prejudicial behavior.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, its been recognized as a fundamental right for over 50 years. Constitution doesn't list all the rights we have, it actually says so right in the document.
And aside from that, equality under the law is generally considered to be a right so any law that gives benefit to one group while not providing it to a similarly situated group violates that right. So while the government might not be obligated to recognize any marriage, if it recognizes any it should recognize all.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The Bible is one piece of evidence that many SSM opponents accept as very very strong. Not to mention the word of people who have supposedly communicated with God. "
I'm sorry, I was talking about evidence for measurable harms. Maybe I wasn't clear on that?
You can believe anything you want is a harm, but unless you can show how its a harm, and measure that harm some way, and of course communicate that harm without resorting to your religion, the thing you believe is a harm really has no business in a serious discussion, especially on a policy matter.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not at all. "re-inforcing the second class nature of homosexual realtionships" refers to a broad range of specific and direct harms, which range from practical legal matters such as probate law, medical power of attorney, and child custody to mental health problems and workplace discrimination due to prejudicial behavior.
And "undermining the second class nature of homosexual relationships" also refers to a broad range of specific and direct harms.
For instance, to a SSM advocate, it might be harmful to gay couples if they don't get tax breaks that other married couples do. To SSM opponents, it might be harmful to citizens if they have to pay for tax breaks going to gay couples that gay couples (in their view) shouldn't get. You can call this direct or indirect harm, but it can go both ways depending on what you consider helpful and harmful.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, your "direct harm" are a lot like the "harms" inflicted upon white people when they had to share water fountains and didn't always get the good seats on the bus.
Rectifying an injustice does cause some kind of harm to the people who were unjustly benefiting from the injustice.
quote:You can believe anything you want is a harm, but unless you can show how its a harm, and measure that harm some way, and of course communicate that harm using rational pieces of "evidence," the thing you believe is a harm really has no business in a serious discussion, especially on a policy matter.
So says you. But we're talking about the idea that SSM opponents should "face up" to the "harm" their viewpoint is causing. If some of them believe the Bible to be the most definitive piece of evidence available, it's downright ridiculous to expect them to ignore it when trying to figure out what is harmful.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, to a SSM advocate, it might be harmful to gay couples if they don't get tax breaks that other married couples do. To SSM opponents, it might be harmful to citizens if they have to pay for tax breaks going to gay couples that gay couples (in their view) shouldn't get. You can call this direct or indirect harm, but it can go both ways depending on what you consider helpful and harmful.
These harms are not invoked by most people that oppose SSM. I'm sure you can produce a hypothetical SSM opponent who is directly harmed by a (marginally) increased tax burdon, but all of the harms claimed prior to this discussion of the lack of direct harms were indirect and hypothetical.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can believe anything you want is a harm, but unless you can show how its a harm, and measure that harm some way, and of course communicate that harm without resorting to your religion, the thing you believe is a harm really has no business in a serious discussion, especially on a policy matter.
(Emphasis added.)
Of course, many people disagree with the basic assumptions in this statement, which is one of the reasons why so many discussions on this topic are never fruitful.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, your "direct harm" are a lot like the "harms" inflicted upon white people when they had to share water fountains and didn't always get the good seats on the bus.
Rectifying an injustice does cause some kind of harm to the people who were unjustly benefiting from the injustice.
So what?
That's completely correct.
The point is that whether or not there is overall harm being caused by laws against SSM depends on whether or not you consider it an injustice.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it not an injustice when the government grants rights to some people that it doesn't grant to others?
Yet again, this question depends on assumptions that are not necessarily shared with those you're asking the question of.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can believe anything you want is a harm, but unless you can show how its a harm, and measure that harm some way, and of course communicate that harm without resorting to your religion, the thing you believe is a harm really has no business in a serious discussion, especially on a policy matter.
(Emphasis added.)
Of course, many people disagree with the basic assumptions in this statement, which is one of the reasons why so many discussions on this topic are never fruitful.
If I was trying to convince someone that SSM was wrong then of course Paul is right: that, assuming he doesn't share my religious convictions, resorting to religious arguments is completely ineffectual. However, my reading of this thread is that though these things have swung side to side, the last several pages have been an attempt to "show", so to speak, that opponents of SSM legalization are causing harm to others and thus should stop. This being the case, I would find it just as ineffectual to announce that all SSM opponents would need to revoke the influence of religion in determining harm caused by their actions. One of the most important things my religion does inform is my basic beliefs about what harm really is. Insisting that any public debate remove the effects of religion is calling for a castration of religion entirely. What should religion inform if not my opinion on general life goals? Shouldn't the belief in an after-life, and especially the ways to find success (or however we choose to phrase) in the eternities impact my view of what is and is not right in this life? Aren't others doing the same even when the belief they have is a lack of the after life? I'm not trying to start a "science=religion" argument here, I'm just pointing out that we all have ideas about what the point of life is and what we're trying to get out of it. The real separation of view points in terms of how to deal with moral issues like SSM stems from differences in those goals. To insist that people disregard their religion and thus remove their "purpose of life" statements and make them fall in line with your own is basically demanding at the outset of the argument that you will win. Which, of course, is neither likely nor helpful.
posted
Mph, Do you want to make a case for why those assumptions are wrong or do you just want to throw that in there?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet again, this question depends on assumptions that are not necessarily shared with those you're asking the question of.
True. If people honestly believe that blacks are inferior to whites and are cursed by God to be an subserviant race, then slavery is not an injustice.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ... The Bible is one piece of evidence that many SSM opponents accept as very very strong. Not to mention the word of people who have supposedly communicated with God.
By all means tie the Bible and God closer to SSM opposition. While that may play well in the US in the present, it sure makes the case *for* SSM easier to make internationally (plus the added bonus of providing fodder for atheists in the future).
It will also be interesting to see how the various sects react as they plow ahead despite facing more acceptance within their ranks (ala contraception in the Catholic Church) or claim that it was just a mis-interpretation/change in revelation or whatever the Mormons do in regard to blacks or simply splinter (as the Anglicans seem to be doing over this issue).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, it is quite right that your religious convictions should determine your life goals and purpose of life.
It is wrong that your religious convictions should determine the life goals and purpose of life for other people who don't share your particular religious convictions.
Would you like your life goals and purpose of life determined by my religious convictions?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh please. Let me determine your life goals and purpose of life based on my convictions about religion *grin*
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was very careful to make my statement just about what MPH said and the role of religion in discussion, if you felt that I stated that my religious convictions should be used to determine other's goals I suggest you re-read my post. I've read the thread but stayed out until now because I knew that like Geoff, I'd burn-out out but faster and undoubtedly having added less well informed discussion. I tried to keep from getting directly into the argument itself and just address one of the tangents that sprang up. A far more interesting discussion than if religion should be used in discussion (which is what I felt Paul was saying should not happen) would be if opposing SSM marriage is the same as determining life goals and purposes for others. Though both would be more effective than attacking me because I've already decided to cut and run when the going gets tough.
posted
Boots -- whether the assumptions are wrong or not, you know that they are not shared by a large percentage of the people in the conversation, which makes such questions mainly useful for scoring rhetorical points, not constructive dialog.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes, that wasn't an attack. Assuming that your religious convictions are informing your decision about who you marry and aren't urging you to support laws about who other people marry, you and I have no argument. You are perfectly free to believe that SSM is bad and to never marry someone of the same sex.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it not an injustice when the government grants rights to some people that it doesn't grant to others?
I pay taxes and some people don't. You can vote and certain other people can't. Obama can run for president but Arnold can't. And so on... Rights often come with restrictions that make the rights only applicable or more useful to certain groups.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Boots -- whether the assumptions are wrong or not, you know that they are not shared by a large percentage of the people in the conversation, which makes such questions mainly useful for scoring rhetorical points, not constructive dialog.
So argue those assumptions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it not an injustice when the government grants rights to some people that it doesn't grant to others?
I pay taxes and some people don't. You can vote and certain other people can't. Obama can run for president but Arnold can't. And so on... Rights often come with restrictions that make the rights only applicable or more useful to certain groups.
Yup. Like I wrote, the question is whether or not those injustices are justified.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, hobbes, when you cast a vote, based on your religious convictions, then you are using your religions convictions to determine how other people should live, and thus what their life goals should be, in this case by voting to remove a possible life goal.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hobbes, that wasn't an attack. Assuming that your religious convictions are informing your decision about who you marry and aren't urging you to support laws about who other people marry, you and I have no argument. You are perfectly free to believe that SSM is bad and to never marry someone of the same sex.
Religion should definitely be a factor in what laws you vote for, if your views on ethics are based in religion. Otherwise you'd be voting for things that you consider wrong, which is itself wrong. That doesn't mean it's wise to try and have the government do the church's job, but it does mean individuals need to take their religious moral views into account when making political decisions.
That is not equivalent to determining someone else's life goals for them. The government has no say in what I choose as my life goals, and couldn't even if every voter wanted it to.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The thing is, hobbes, when you cast a vote, based on your religious convictions, then you are using your religions convictions to determine how other people should live, and thus what their life goals should be, in this case by voting to remove a possible life goal.
And when you vote without any thought to a particular organized religion you are instead placing yourself in the role of head of your own religion, as far as your own decisions are concerned. You let stupid people vote carelessly all the time, and I let religious people vote even when they are just voting for what their leaders tell them too. The stupid person and the religious one are both making mistakes, but I don't see how we can effectively stop either.
If by keeping this status quo we continue to allow smart people to vote, and those who may have actually been told by God to vote a certain way to also vote I think we have maximized the good that can reasonably be accomplished in this way.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is it not determining someone's life goal if someone's goal is to marry someone they love and have a family?
Tresopax, would you feel the same way if the majority of voters had religious beliefs that were abhorant to you? What if, hypothetically, a majority of people shared a religious belief that included ritual sex with their children. Should our laws change to permit that? Or are there some things that should not be decided my majority religious beliefs?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not? Because you you've been in enough of these conversations that you know that those assumptions are not shared with your audience, you know that it's a loaded question, and you know that while it's great for rhetoric, it's unlikely to to lead to useful communication.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, would you feel the same way if the majority of voters had religious beliefs that were abhorant to you?
If that were the case, I'd think they should get a better religion.
And I'd think there should exist certain Constitutional rights that can't be easily changed for any reason, religious or nonreligious. If the majority passes some abhorant law, it really doesn't matter if their reasons are religious or nonreligious; it's abhorant either way.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is it not determining someone's life goal if someone's goal is to marry someone they love and have a family?
They can still have that goal - it will just be harder to achieve it. I suppose you could say it is discouraging them to have such a life goal though.
But that's the role of government in a democracy. It passes laws that restrict people's lives as the majority deem necessary, within the limits given to it. That does mean it is often in the business of influencing life goals, in a sense.
But it definitely can't say "Your goal in life is to marry someone of the opposite sex" or "Your goal in life is to buy fancy cars" or whatever. It can encourage or discourage options, but it doesn't get to make my choice for me.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If that were the case, I'd think they should get a better religion. "
Get a better religion. The one you have is making you believe that abhorrent voting patterns are acceptable.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Isn't this pretty much what every atheist thinks? If you're starting from false premises, you can never reach a logically valid conclusion.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"My religion does not make any claims about what voting patterns are acceptable.... "
I didn't say it did. I said that your religion is leading you to believe that the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage is not abhorrent.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I didn't say it did. I said that your religion is leading you to believe that the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage is not abhorrent.
But again, it's not my religion that's leading me to believe that.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
