FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Somehow the other day we got talking about Alexander the Great, and he mentioned that Alexander was mentioned in the Bible. By name, specifically.

Is he a member of one of the sects that defines Maccabees 1& 2 as part of the Bible? Because if so, I think he might be right.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But when the government starts recognizing a given marriage, that to some extent forces everyone to recognize it.
Ha! You don't have any friends that have the piece of paper that you don't considered really married? Cause I've got one that just did it for the baby. I'm not sure how interested in each other they really are, but they love their daughter. Personally, I don't consider that a real marriage and I'm waiting for one of them to decide she's old enough to not need both of them at home and get divorced.

Heck, even the government doesn't always trust the people they give out the paperwork to. They go back and investigate folks if they think they just did it to get a green card. They don't really bother to define what they think a marriage should be, but they still know that isn't it.

All this would be easier if we the people demanded that the government define a marriage and then made them realize that they can't possibly regulate it. We won't, but we should.

Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Is he a member of one of the sects that defines Maccabees 1& 2 as part of the Bible? Because if so, I think he might be right.
Nope, he's said (at great length) that he's a strictly King James Version guy. It would be quite like him, though, to cite as biblical evidence from books he specifically doesn't believe are in the bible.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
andi330
Member
Member # 8572

 - posted      Profile for andi330           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by AvidReader:

Heck, even the government doesn't always trust the people they give out the paperwork to. They go back and investigate folks if they think they just did it to get a green card.

Getting married to an American citizen no longer guarantees you a green card or legal alien status. Just as having children who are born on American soil and therefore American citizens no longer guarantees you the right to live in the United States. If it did, my cousin and his girlfriend (wife in all but legality) would already be married. Although when getting married did guarantee a green card, you are correct in your above statement.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
They still go back and check up, even though the marriage is not a guarantee of the green card.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Is he a member of one of the sects that defines Maccabees 1& 2 as part of the Bible? Because if so, I think he might be right.
Nope, he's said (at great length) that he's a strictly King James Version guy. It would be quite like him, though, to cite as biblical evidence from books he specifically doesn't believe are in the bible.
Maybe he's confused and is confusing Cyrus the Great with Alexander.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Somehow the other day we got talking about Alexander the Great, and he mentioned that Alexander was mentioned in the Bible. By name, specifically.

Is he a member of one of the sects that defines Maccabees 1& 2 as part of the Bible? Because if so, I think he might be right.
Maccabees, Chapter 1, Verse 1:
Alexander of Macedon son of Philip had come from the land of Kittim and defeated Darius king of the Persians and Medes, whom he succeeded as ruler, at first of Hellas.

Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
The name "Alexander" only appears in the New Testament, and none of them refer to the Greek Emperor. Alexander the Great is DESCRIBED by the prophecy of Daniel 8:5-8, 21, 22, as the "great horn" on the goat, descibed as "the first king," who would then be broken, with four kings arising in his place. After the death of Alexander, the Grecian Empire was divided among his four generals. It is a pretty good description.

Alexander is also alluded to in Daniel 10:10.

I am not as familiar with the Apocrypha. If Alexander is mentioned there, fine--but that would not be part of the present King James Version.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post 
Dobbie's quote of Maccabees 1:1 seems to name the right Alexander. But since Maccabees was written during the time of the Grecian Empire (after it had been divided into four parts), that is not a big deal.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post 
I was merely confirming what rivka wrote.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
I was merely confirming what rivka wrote.

Shehechiyanu v'kiyimanu v'higiyanu lazman hazeh!
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AvidReader
Member
Member # 6007

 - posted      Profile for AvidReader   Email AvidReader         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Getting married to an American citizen no longer guarantees you a green card or legal alien status.
I had no idea. Thanks, andi!
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I think you already hit on their reason in this quote: They don't want the government to redefine their sacraments for them.
I think you are very close to identifying the problem. Marriage is the only sacrament of any religion that is given legal status. And while that has a very long history, I think the problems with that are becoming evident. Marriage plays multiple roles in our society.

1. It is a sacrament within various religions.

2. It the means by which a community recognizes legitimacy on sexual relationships.

3. It is connected to a host of legal rights.

4. It is a means by which a couple can solemnize their commitment to each other.

There are probably others as well, but these at least are important.

The problem is that the vast majority of us agree that peoples of all religions should be treated equally under the law. But at the same time, we are also wary of government attempts to change things we hold sacred. This isn't a thing that is easily resolved.

The only way I see for this to turn out well is for government to get completely out of the marriage business and to replace it with adult domestic partnership. And I'm not just talking about gays, I'm talking about everyone. That would cleanly differentiate between the legal aspects of marriage and the social and religious aspects.

There is no reason that the legal recognition of familial relationships should be based on whether the majority of people consider peoples sexual relationship "legitimate" or even whether the relationship is sexual at all. The legal right to be treated as a familial unit should be based solely on peoples desire to be consider as a family and their willingness to accept the legal and financial responsibilities associated with that relationship.

And in my mind, this is something that religious people should really get behind because as long as the government gives legal status to marriage, there will always be the threat of government regulating what they see as a sacred religious sacrament.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Dobbie:
I was merely confirming what rivka wrote.

Shehechiyanu v'kiyimanu v'higiyanu lazman hazeh!
I didn't realize being right would be such a unique experience for you. [Hat]
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
You agreeing with me certainly is.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
That's just because you don't capitalize the first letter of your name.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
[Confused]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
Rivka, we've been over this. [No No]

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The problem is that the vast majority of us agree that peoples of all religions should be treated equally under the law. But at the same time, we are also wary of government attempts to change things we hold sacred. This isn't a thing that is easily resolved.
Perhaps FundieDude at work has made me skeptical, but I wonder. Get him going, and he's not at all embarrassed or reluctant to admit that a) the USA is a Christian nation, and maybe we shouldn't oppress other religions (mostly Muslims and some Christian religions), but we should definitely have it ensconced in our government that Christianity (Baptist, to be specific) is Right, and b) he'd be delighted if we changed sacraments around to his way of thinking.

I wonder if what our society does is actually a very good job of encouraging people to be embarrassed about those sorts of opinions enough that they don't speak `em out where just anyone can hear, unprompted.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
Rivka, we've been over this. [No No]

We have?

. . . they do say the memory is the second thing to go . . .

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
Last few posts here.

[EDIT: I'd like to point out that I bolded the first letter of your name only in my post. It was quite a clever bit of topography if I do say so myself. Which I did because I knew no one else was going to.]

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
I remember that conversation. I just don't see what it has to do with whether Dobbie agrees with me or not.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
Nothing of course, it's all about the context. Which in this case is that I'm amazingly hilarious. Now you know.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
Which in this case is that I'm amazingly hilarious. Now you know.

I already did.

But I'm still confused.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
Dobbie never agrees with you because, unlike him, you don't capitalize the first letter of your name. If that's not a principle for hilarity I don't know what is.

[EDIT: It's kind of like a racial thing, but not being a member of a race that's ever been persecuted by anyone you probably wouldn't understand. It just struck a chord with me as an upper-middle class white male I guess]

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
. . . ok.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
...huh?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
Yah, well the good news it that it took 12 posts to figure out exactly how funny I am. Always nice to be an instrument in interrupting an actual discussion with my wacky antics.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Hobbes, did somebody slip something into your lemonade? Like gin, perhaps?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
Or LSD? But I congratulate you on effectively derailing the thread.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dobbie
Member
Member # 3881

 - posted      Profile for Dobbie           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
You agreeing with me certainly is.

I don't see the distinction here.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
I am posting in this high quality thread.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
The only way I see for this to turn out well is for government to get completely out of the marriage business and to replace it with adult domestic partnership. And I'm not just talking about gays, I'm talking about everyone. That would cleanly differentiate between the legal aspects of marriage and the social and religious aspects.

There is no reason that the legal recognition of familial relationships should be based on whether the majority of people consider peoples sexual relationship "legitimate" or even whether the relationship is sexual at all. The legal right to be treated as a familial unit should be based solely on peoples desire to be consider as a family and their willingness to accept the legal and financial responsibilities associated with that relationship.

And in my mind, this is something that religious people should really get behind because as long as the government gives legal status to marriage, there will always be the threat of government regulating what they see as a sacred religious sacrament.

That is exactly how I feel about marriage, but I have never expressed it as succinctly. [Hat]

* Emphasis added by me because I liked it

Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
The problem is that the vast majority of us agree that peoples of all religions should be treated equally under the law. But at the same time, we are also wary of government attempts to change things we hold sacred. This isn't a thing that is easily resolved.
Perhaps FundieDude at work has made me skeptical, but I wonder. Get him going, and he's not at all embarrassed or reluctant to admit that a) the USA is a Christian nation, and maybe we shouldn't oppress other religions (mostly Muslims and some Christian religions), but we should definitely have it ensconced in our government that Christianity (Baptist, to be specific) is Right, and b) he'd be delighted if we changed sacraments around to his way of thinking.

I wonder if what our society does is actually a very good job of encouraging people to be embarrassed about those sorts of opinions enough that they don't speak `em out where just anyone can hear, unprompted.

The hurdle is twofold. There is a distinct crusade against equal rights for homosexuals, and it is very, very plainly a religious one. To get government out of marriage is against the goals and preconceptions of a large portion of the religious in this country who perpetuate this culture struggle. They don't want marriage to lose its legal status because they honestly believe and wish to perpetuate the notion of America as a 'Christian nation' 'founded on Christianity' 'by Christians,' etc. To them, the institute of marriage in America is christian and it is supposed to be pretty much dictated by Christian definitions, not secular ones. There are also large, large portions of these culture warriors who fight and advocate for the repression of homosexuals because they are terrified that equal rights for gays will tear apart morally structured stability or some other necessary, Christian-themed environment needed to perpetuate America (see: Orson Scott Card).

They don't want to go this route; they want to go the complete opposite route. They want marriage to be a tool for structuring society as they see fit in God's eyes. secularism, tolerance, or fairness be damned.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
...
I wonder if what our society does is actually a very good job of encouraging people to be embarrassed about those sorts of opinions enough that they don't speak `em out where just anyone can hear, unprompted.

Thats an interesting point and I think you're probably right.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
They don't want to go this route; they want to go the complete opposite route. They want marriage to be a tool for structuring society as they see fit in God's eyes. secularism, tolerance, or fairness be damned.
I'm sure there are some who think that way, but I sincerely doubt they make up anywhere near the majority of opponents of same sex marriage.

Its very large uncharitable to take diverse group of people and assign to them unflattering motives which few if any have actually voiced. If you made an honest attempt to understand people rather than demonizing them, you'd have a much better chance of finding a compromise that meets everyones needs.

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
swbarnes2
Member
Member # 10225

 - posted      Profile for swbarnes2           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
They don't want to go this route; they want to go the complete opposite route. They want marriage to be a tool for structuring society as they see fit in God's eyes. secularism, tolerance, or fairness be damned.
I'm sure there are some who think that way, but I sincerely doubt they make up anywhere near the majority of opponents of same sex marriage.

Its very large uncharitable to take diverse group of people and assign to them unflattering motives which few if any have actually voiced. If you made an honest attempt to understand people rather than demonizing them, you'd have a much better chance of finding a compromise that meets everyones needs.

Okay, then can you show us any evidence for the existance of this large, silent majority of people who oppose same-sex marraige, but would be okay with the government granting civil unions to all instead?

Because the ratio of times I've heard this idea trumpeted by people who supported same-sex marriage versus those who oppose it is about 50:0.

I just don't think that the real problem people have with ssm has anything to do with keeping marriage sacred. If it were, they'd be a whole lot more upset at people breaking vows made to God about life-long bonds. And a whole lot more upset at all those godless atheists getting married civially. The Bible is actually quite clear...Christians don't have to worry about respecting Caesar's taxes, so why should they worry about his civil marriages? It has to do with wanting to be religiously and socially superior to people who live their lives differently. And equal government treatment undermines that.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And a whole lot more upset at all those godless atheists getting married civially.
Really? I've thought we were talking about same sex marriage, I had no idea the real issue was atheists marrying. I've never heard anyone express an opinion that atheists (or any non-Christians) shouldn't be allowed to legally marry. Perhaps you can direct me to some source?

It's also worthy of note that gays aren't necessarily atheists, many including some who post here are devoutly religious.

quote:
Okay, then can you show us the large, silent majority of people who oppose same-sex marraige, but would be okay with the government granting civil unions to all instead?
My experience in discussing the issue with people is that many (the majority in my experience) who are strongly opposed to same sex marriage can be persuaded to support civil unions -- as long as those in civil unions have the same legal responsibilities as those who are married. The gay community has largely opposed this route.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Because the ratio of times I've heard this idea trumpeted by people who supported same-sex marriage versus those who oppose it is about 50:0.
Because, after all, relying on anecdotal word-of-mouth evidence in situations where elements of the discussion are incredibly vocal and memorable is a good and reliable way to measure things?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Bok-

Here's a Slate article written at the time of the California ruling (not Prop 8, Samp; I'm not sure what you're talking about) that explains why strict scrutiny (or the slightly watered down "heightened scrutiny" used by Iowa and, IIRC, Connecticut) is a significantly higher bar for laws to overcome.

Essentially, if a group characteristic (in this case sexual orientation) is deemed sufficient according to certain standards, then laws must meet a higher level of justification. In the MA case, the SJC ruled according to "rational basis," which indicated that a lower threshold of justifiability would be required for laws restricting gay marriage. The CA court asserted strict scrutiny protection for laws pertaining to homosexuals, setting the bar significantly higher. Which I believe was the precedent under which the law in Iowa (and Connecticut) was deemed unconstitutional.

. . .

What I do feel, though, is it should be carried out in churches and clubs, in businesses and bars, rather than legislatures and courtrooms. When (if) society is sufficiently comfortable with extending the construct, it will be established not through the force of the state, but as a natural outgrowth of the society. I generally feel that the use of state powers to compel the citizenry to accept a particular construct, to force public opinion through the threat of law, is dangerous and should be avoided.

The bar you're referring to requires what's referred to as reasonable, substantial, and compelling state interest in regulating a certain behavior, each harder to pass than the last. Decisions made with second- and third-tier scrutinies aren't as landmark as top-tier, and are more easily reversed.

The thing is, this isn't going to be reversed. While there certainly doesn't exist any compelling state interest in discriminatory marriage licenses, there's not even a reasonable one. And the tide is turning -- with all due respect, people who still believe homosexuality is somehow wrong are increasingly dying out. I personally know of nobody against homosexual marriage (but I also live in NYC), and I can all but guarantee the number of people under 30 who still oppose homosexual equality can be counted as a percentage on two hands.

If you really believe marriage should not be a state institution (which I agree with), then vote to remove it from state regulation. But how does maintaining a state institution which discriminates against homosexuals benefit your position at ALL?

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
" I've never heard anyone express an opinion that atheists (or any non-Christians) shouldn't be allowed to legally marry."

That's his point.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My experience in discussing the issue with people is that many (the majority in my experience) who are strongly opposed to same sex marriage can be persuaded to support civil unions -- as long as those in civil unions have the same legal responsibilities as those who are married. The gay community has largely opposed this route.
In my experience, that's primarily because the gay community sees that as separate, but equal.

Not that that affects your point, just sayin'.

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There is a distinct crusade against equal rights for homosexuals, and it is very, very plainly a religious one.
This is not an accurate way to put it. The crusade is not about giving heterosexuals rights that homosexuals don't get. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals would have the right to marry - as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals nor bisexuals would have the right to marry someone of the same sex. Thus the crusade is not about equality; rather it is a crusade against homosexuality as a practice, and an effort to prevent it from being officially recognized as a legitimate relationship.

Having said that, as the Rabbit points out, I also don't think it is correct to assume most opponents of SSM marriage oppose it because of that sort of a crusade. I'd suspect the majority of SSM opponents haven't thought that much about it, and simply oppose it because that's not what they think a marriage is.

Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My experience in discussing the issue with people is that many (the majority in my experience) who are strongly opposed to same sex marriage can be persuaded to support civil unions -- as long as those in civil unions have the same legal responsibilities as those who are married. The gay community has largely opposed this route.
There's a difference between persuading people to accept that gays can have civil unions and persuading those people to give up THEIR government sanction marriage. There's also a difference between gays accepting civil unions when straights still get to have the word "marriage," and accepting everyone being equal under a universal "domestic partnership" law.

"Marriage," as a word, by itself, is incredibly powerful, and I think it's at the crux of the issue.

I found this interview interesting:

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/11/14/02

Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
My experience in discussing the issue with people is that many (the majority in my experience) who are strongly opposed to same sex marriage can be persuaded to support civil unions -- as long as those in civil unions have the same legal responsibilities as those who are married. The gay community has largely opposed this route.
The problem, IMO, is that there may be a silent majority of moderate voters who would support civil unions for all, but the major organizations that fund and direct the anti-SSM campaigns like the AFA and Focus on the Family are strongly against even civil unions for gays. Even the LDS church hasn't explicitly support the idea of civil unions for gays, let alone for everyone. The closest they could come was endorsing the idea of certain civil rights being available to gays. Though when these specific rights were proposed in the Utah legislature this year they were quickly dismissed.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
quote:
There is a distinct crusade against equal rights for homosexuals, and it is very, very plainly a religious one.
This is not an accurate way to put it. The crusade is not about giving heterosexuals rights that homosexuals don't get. Both heterosexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals would have the right to marry - as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex. Neither heterosexuals nor homosexuals nor bisexuals would have the right to marry someone of the same sex.
Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. Homosexuals do not.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xaposert
Member
Member # 1612

 - posted      Profile for Xaposert           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. Homosexuals do not.
Not true... heterosexuals can't marry brothers, sisters, anyone underage, animals, people who are currently married to someone else, or anyone who doesn't consent to marrying them. If the only person a heterosexual man loves is a girl who won't consent to marrying him, he can't argue that marriage laws are unequally biased against people who want to mary people who don't love them back. Unfortunately for him, part of the definition of marriage is a two-sided consensual relationship, or at least so our society says.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
Heterosexuals have the right to marry the consenting human adult of their choice, with some restrictions based on genetic homology.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:
Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with. Homosexuals do not.
Not true... heterosexuals can't marry brothers, sisters, anyone underage, animals, people who are currently married to someone else, or anyone who doesn't consent to marrying them. If the only person a heterosexual man loves is a girl who won't consent to marrying him, he can't argue that marriage laws are unequally biased against people who want to mary people who don't love them back. Unfortunately for him, part of the definition of marriage is a two-sided consensual relationship, or at least so our society says.
Come back in a few years, read this, and try not to be embarrassed.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
OK.

Heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love and want to spend the rest of their life with, as long as that person consents and is not closely related, underage, already married, or an animal. Homosexuals do not.

Anything else?

ETA: For the moment, I'm ignoring the (barely) separate point that, quite often, civil unions do not confer all the rights and responsibilities that marriage does.

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  8  9  10   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2