|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Member (Idle past 1498 days)  Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Marriage Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As you know, Christians believe in a God who Himself is the defining factor of absolute morality. Yes, I realize that. I realize exactly why you oppose getting married to a homosexual, because I hear those arguments all the time from my mom.  What you don't seem to realize, or think is important, is that I believe, as is my constitutional right, that your ideas of God and morality are a load of crap. I don't believe in god. I don't believe that there's an absolute moral standard that homosexuals violate just by having sex with each other. So why do your beliefs get to be made into law and mine get ignored?
So you can see that our disagreement on this issue stems to our worldview. Yes, I realize that. What's why I asked the question that I did. I didn't ask "why do Christians think gay marriage is wrong?", because I already know the answer to that. The question that I did ask, which Rrhain repeated because you seem to have missed it the first time, is why your cultural disapproval of gay marriage trumps my approval of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
sidelined Member (Idle past 5939 days)  Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Tokyojim
I would like to challenge you on astatement of yours here.
As you know, Christians believe in a God who Himself is the defining factor of absolute morality. For instance, because God is love, humans are also to love. Because God is holy, humans should also be holy. Because God is faithful, humans should also be faithful for example in marriage. Anyway, this moral standard is absolute and applies to every person alive regardless of whether or not they recognize that standard. In order to pursue this can we start with explanations of how God can be say,jealous,and yet it is probably not a 'good' thing to follow in this? How about hate for those who disagree with us as God does the Nicolaitins? Does this mean that you as a Christian shouldhate me for being an atheist? What are we to make of pride as evidenced by these to separate verses of the same book of the bible.
Psa 12:3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, [and] the tongue that speaketh proud things: Psa 31:23 O love the LORD, all ye his saints: [for] the LORD preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer. If you are going to set up God as arbitrer of "absolute" morals please be sure to include all the lessons. ------------------Chemical kinetics firmly restrains time's arrow in the taut bow of thermodynamics for milliseconds to millennia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tokyojim Inactive Member |
Tokyojim responds to crashfrog:
quote: You can use your argument against this issue(same-sex marriage) to try and get anything accepted including group marriage or even polygamy. Rrhain replies: No, you can't.You see, allowing marriage between people of the same sex changes absolutely nothing about the way marriage is regulated just in the same way that allowing marriage between people of different races didn't change anything about it. Polygamy, on the other hand, requires a change in the administration of marriage. If Person A marries Person B, what happens when Person B marries Person C? Are A and C also married? Does A need to consent to the marriage, too? Does divorce dissolve all marriages or only the connection of one? How is property divided at that point? What is the relationship between the children and the non-biological parent? How do things like Social Security and insurance get taken care of? There may be good answers to all of these questions such that we might conclude that polygamy is something we shouldn't deny, but the justifications for it cannot be found in the same ones for same sex marriage. TJ replies: Sorry, Rrhain, I disagree. Yes you can use that same argument for group marriage, polygamy, etc. In fact people are already doing it. For instance look at this statement on Polygamy by the ACLU. The ACLU's Matt Coles may have derided the idea of a slippery slope from gay marriage to polygamy, but the ACLU itself stepped in to help Tom Green during his trial and declared its support for the repeal of all "laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage." There is of course a difference between repealing such laws and formal state recognition of polygamous marriages. Neither the ACLU nor, say, Ellen Goodman has directly advocated formal state recognition. Yet they give us no reason to suppose that, when the time is ripe, they will not do so. Stephen Clark, the legal director of the Utah ACLU, has said, "Talking to Utah's polygamists is like talking to gays and lesbians who really want the right to live their lives." Rrhain, like it or not, agree with it or not, it is happening. Even group marriage advocates (polyamory) are also already using the same arguments. "After passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, an article appeared in Loving More, the flagship magazine of the polyamory movement, calling for the creation of a polyamorist rights movement modeled on the movement for gay rights. The piece was published under the pen name Joy Singer, identified as the graduate of a "top ten law school" and a political organizer and public official in California for the previous two decades.http://www.weeklystandard.com/...es/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp Your statement that - There may be good answers to all of these questions such that we might conclude that polygamy is something we shouldn't deny -is quite revealing. For you there is no morality involved here whatsoever. That is exactly what I was saying and you proved my point. You yourself are unable to say no to polygamy as long as all the little practicalities can be worked out. That is what happens once we change the definition of marriage and make it flexible. Pretty soon the word marriage will become meaningless. We must protect the institution of family -father, mother, and children - for the sake of society. And if we don't, we'll all pay the consequences. Your statement that - allowing marriage between people of the same sex changes absolutely nothing about the way marriage is regulated - is false. A change in the administration of marriage is necessary. There is either no father or no mother. In the case of a "divorce" what happens? In same-sex relationships where children are involved, there is either no mother or no father. This happens as a result of divorce far too much, and the children suffer. But choosing this kind of a situation from the start cannot be considered wise. Same-sex relationships cannot produce children so how can you call it a marriage? The real mother or father is either unknown or denied parental rights and you have a substitute parent of the same sex. The child is denied a real mother or a real father. This is not natural or good for the children. And to do so simply to satisfy the desires of some same-sex couples to have children at the expense of the children's best interests, is just plain old selfish. ******************************************************************** quote: And, what is to prevent acceptance of sex with animals or adult sex with children if both are individuals are consenting? Rrhain: Because children and animals, by definition, can't give consent. TJ replies: : OK, if you mean by consenting that they have to be a certain age to give consent, then you are right, but my children know how to give consent to something and how to say no to something. How about yours? And since when would it matter for animals to give consent. They aren't people, they are just animals. Do we get consent from cows to take their milk or from bulls to kill them for meat? Of course not. ******************************************************************** Rrhain said:I knew this was going to be the reason: If you allow people of the same sex to get married, what's to prevent people from marrying a six-year-old or a goat or even a lawn mower? Because that is, after all, the most logical thing. A loving, mutually supportive relationship automatically leads to coercive, manipulative relationships or desire to have sex with something that isn't even alive. TJ replies: : What in the world are you trying to say? I never mentioned marrying a 6 year old, an animal or a lawn mower. You are free to believe whatever you want, but don't put words in my mouth, please. **************************************************************** Rrhain said:Question: How does allowing two people of the same sex to marry lead to child abuse any more than allowing two people of the opposite sex to marry? What is it about being of the same sex that leads to child abuse? What is it about being of the opposite sex that prevents child abuse? After all, the evidence clearly shows that heterosexuals are much more likely to engage in sexual molestation of children than homosexuals. TJ replies: Again, you are putting words into my mouth. I never said anything of the sort and I don't personally hold to that opinion either. That is not what I'm arguing. This is a mute point. ************************************************************ quote: In fact there is an organization called the North American Man Boy Love Association that promotes this kind of "freedom". Rrhain replies: And no gay rights organization supports them. That's because everybody recognizes the difference between a loving, mutually supportive relationship between two people who can give consent and a coercive, abusive relationship predicated upon a power trip over one who cannot give consent. TJ replies: : That may be, but read this: Members of The North American Man-Boy Love Association do march in some gay pride parades.The academic Journal of Homosexuality (vol. 20, nos. 1/2, l990) has also explored the issue of "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" in a generally approving manner. The vast majority of the articles in "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" argue that pedophilia should be freed from categorization as child abuse. http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/arguecase.html *************************************************************** quote: Plus the radical homosexual agenda isn't to stop with just this concession. Rrhain replies: Strawman. Even if we assume the existence of this "radical homosexual agenda" (where can I find a PDF of it, if you don't mind?) what does that have to do with anything? Are you saying that because there are some things you don't like, that is justification for denying equal rights? Are you seriously saying that because you are paranoid that Person A might get a legal advantage over you, that's justification to deny equal treatment under the law to that person? TJ replies: No, I'm saying that once you change the definition of marriage once, there is no stopping it. By the way, here is some information on the radical homosexual agenda: November, 1987, the homosexual magazine Guide published, "The Overhauling of Straight America", by Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill. This article was a proposed blueprint by homosexual activists for transforming the social values of "straight" America. At the core of the program was a media campaign to change the way the average citizens viewed homosexuality by desensitizing them concerning homosexuals and homosexual rights.Check out the full article here: http://www.inoohr.org/homomanual.htm ******************************************************************* quote: Some are even interested in the destruction or abolition of marriage. Rrhain: That makes no sense.How does allowing people to get married lead to the abolition of marriage? How does fighting for the right to get married lead to taking away marriage? TJ replies: I am objecting to re-defining marriage to include same sex relationships. That kind of a relationship is not a marriage. Pretty soon polygamy gets Okd and then group marriage and then what is marriage? Pretty soon the word marriage will have no meaning and the traditional sense of the word will be lost. By the way, here is a quote from an article that will show what I mean: "One of the most important recent family law meetings was the March 2003 Hofstra conference on "Marriage, Democracy, and Families." The radicals were out in full force. On a panel entitled "Intimate Affiliation and Democracy: Beyond Marriage?" Fineman, Ertman, and Stacey held forth on polyamory, the legal abolition of marriage, and related issues. Although there were more moderate scholars present, there was barely a challenge to the radicals' suggestion that it was time to move "beyond marriage." The few traditionalists in family law are relatively isolated. Many, maybe most, of the prominent figures in family law count themselves as advocates for lesbian and gay rights. Yet family law today is as influenced by the hostility to marriage of seventies feminism as it is by advocacy for gay rights. It is this confluence of radical feminism and gay rights that now shapes the field.Beyond conjugality YOU MIGHT THINK the radicals who dominate the discipline of family law are just a bunch of eccentric and irrelevant academics. You would be wrong. For one thing, there is already a thriving non-profit organization, the Alternatives to Marriage Project, that advances the radicals' goals. When controversies over the family hit the news, experts provided by the Alternatives to Marriage Project are often quoted in mainstream media outlets. While the Alternatives to Marriage Project endorses gay marriage, its longer-term goal is to replace marriage with a system that recognizes "the full range" of family types." http://www.weeklystandard.com/...es/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp Here is another one if you are not convinced:Special Report - December 12, 2002 The American Law Institute (ALI), one the nation's most prestigious legal organizations, recently issued a series of legal principles that threaten to redefine the family. Recommendations from the ALI are often adopted by state legislatures. In the "Principles of Family Dissolution," the ALI has proposed a new category of domestic partnerships, which would allow same-sex and opposite sex unmarried couples, who break up, to receive the same recognition under the law as divorcing married couples. According to the Marriage Law Project, the ALI defines "domestic partners" as unmarried partners that are related to each other or married to other people, as long as they have lived together as a couple for some time. Domestic partners could receive many of the benefits traditionally reserved for married couples, such as property rights and alimony. Another disturbing principle opens the door for homosexuals in areas involving child custody and visitation by allowing adults who are "close to a child" to be given the same status under the law as the child's biological parents." Page Not Found - NC Family Policy Council Copyright 2002. North Carolina Family Policy Council. All rights reserved. ****************************************************************** quote: Where do we draw the line? And if not here, why draw it where you would want to draw it? Rrhain:How about where the Constitution requires it to be drawn? Or does the Fourteenth Amendment mean nothing to you? Equal treatment under the law should be abolished? TJ replies: Of course not. Just don't call it marriage. It isn't. It is vital that we protect the meaning of that word for the future of our children and all of society. ******************************************************************** quote: As you know, Christians believe in a God who Himself is the defining factor of absolute morality. Rrhain:Irrelevant. Please respond to crash's question: Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? In other words, crash fully recognizes that you have your religious beliefs and thus, you would never get married to someone of the same sex. But by what right do your religious restrictions against it get to be applied to everybody else in a free society? How does allowing same sex marriage make you do anything you don't want to do? TJ replies: First of all, pretty soon if the homosexual radicals have there way, it will be illegal even to say that homosexuality is sin. It will infringe on my right to obey God and practice my religion. Secondly, because it will negatively affect all of society in the future, my children and I will have to deal with that. Do you need some information on how homosexuality can have a negative influence on society? We need to understand that marriage is just as much a social norm - a social ideal - of the kind of behavior that we expect and need for a healthy vibrant society; as much as it is about the emotional commitment of two people. Thirdly, this is ultimately a problem of different religions or different worldviews like I mentioned in my first post. Crash adheres to one worldview and I to another. My worldview recognizes the existence of an absolute moral standard that all men are accountable to. It is given to us out of the loving heart of God. It is given with our best interests in mind. Just as parents have to say no to their children for their own good, the same is true here. That is part of my worldview. We humans think we are so much wiser than God. When will we learn? In the name of freedom, we want the right to harm ourselves. Now if it ended there and didn't affect others, that would be one thing, but it doesn't. There is no such thing as a sin that doesn't effect others. *************************************************************** quote: 1) Being married is in our best interest because married people enjoy on the average better health and well-being than others. Rrhain:Then why deny this to gay people? If being married is a good thing, why are you trying to stop people from getting married? quote: 2) Marriage is the most significant factor in children having happy and well-adjusted lives. Rrhain:Then why deny this to gay people and their children? If being married is of a benefit to children, why are you trying to stop the parents of children from getting married? TJ replies: :Let me respond to both challenges together. Sorry, Rrhain. Nice try, but in both of these instances, the research only applies to heterosexual marriages. Obviously you didn't take the time to read the articles I referenced. By the way, I see you forgot to comment on or conveniently left out the argument that same-sex relationships deny children access to either a mother or a father. This is the single biggest point and most powerful. All the research backs this up. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children's lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl. Since you probably didn't do it last time, I'll give you another chance to check out the research for yourself. Family Policy Alliance ****************************************************************** quote: 3) Nature itself makes it clear that heterosexual relationships are the basic fundamental and even natural and right unit for society. Rrhain:No, it doesn't. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Nature itself makes it clear that every single sexual combination is basic and fundamental and natural for society. I direct you to Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl that clearly shows that homosexuality is rampant throughout the rest of nature. So if every other animal does it, why is it unnatural? You don't get to have it both ways. TJ replies: OK, when I said nature, I was basically referring to the design of the male and female body. Anybody can see how they were meant for each other. This is what I mean by nature. Also, it therefore follows that it is natural for children to have a parent of both sexes since that is the only way propagation can take place in the human world. Are you trying to say that having two biological parents is not natural? I doubt it. Sorry, I didn't explain myself clearly enough. It is also natural in the sense that this is the way it has always been in society from the start. A family has always been defined by mother, father and children. All the religions have taught against homosexuality as well, which shows me that homosexuality is not viewed by any society as truly natural. ******************************************************************* quote: How can we Christians be so bigotted to say no to same-sex relationships getting recognized as marriage?It is not bigotted in my opinion. Rrhain: Does it treat people equally under the law?No? Then it's bigoted. TJ replies: That's your opinion. Fine. I understand why you think that because for you there is no God and so obviously there can be no such thing as absolute morality. So in the end it all comes down to people's opinion. Even if we remove God from the picture, I would be against re-defining marriage to include same sex relationships because of the negative influence on society. And by the way, are you under the opinion that government should determine morality? In other words, is the above statement about people being treated equally under the law a statement of absolute morality that all humans are bound to follow? And what happens if they don't? Are there any eternal consequences? If not, if we can get away with inhumane treatment of people, why not do it since it is just an arbitrary idea that some people hold to? Of course, I happen to agree with you, but the idea of equal treatment is based on the idea that all men were created equal by God. If you take away the Creator, there is no absolute reason that we should follow that moral principle. After all, it was just the opinion of some men a long time ago and they could have been wrong. It certainly is only an opinion and things change over time. We should be free to re-evaluate these kinds of statements of morality because morality changes over time, right? ****************************************************************** quote: In the end, it is the most loving thing to do and the best thing, both for the gays themselves as well as for society in general. Rrhain:How? If marriage is such a benefit to people, why are you trying to keep gay people from getting married? It makes no sense! TJ replies: Because same-sex relationships are wrong. God prohibits them for a reason - to protect us. If you want to know how this protects us, check out this article:http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/medconsequences.html http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/recent.html Besides why is it that we only think about the couple themselves and their desires? Why don't we ever think about the children that they may want to raise as well? Now, I know it would not be easy, but I believe they would be much better off if they were to work through their homosexuality and overcome it. It is like an addict going off of a drug. It is hard and they need love and support and help, but the pain is necessary for a greater good. It has been done many times before and it can be done again. ******************************************************************* quote: However, if there is no God, then this issue cannot be said to be an issue of right and wrong. Rrhain: Sure it can.Surely you aren't saying that atheists have no morals, are you? Nowhere in the Constitution is god mentioned. And yet, it has a clear sense of right and wrong. "Equal treatment under the law" is right. Unequal treatment is wrong. So if something treats gay people unequally under the law, then it is wrong. No need to invoke god...just look to the Constitution. TJ replies: I touched on this earlier, but are you saying that the Constitution is an absolute standard of morality? Interesting. It was drawn up by fallible men, so how can it be absolute? Unequal treatment is wrong you say? Who says? A bunch of old men 200 years ago? Why should we listen to them? What gives them the right to dictate how we should live today? Why is it wrong? Besides we have reinterpreted the whole idea of separation of church and state that is in the Constitution, so it doesn't seem so sacred. Why can't we re-interpret this as well? Oh, I get it. This time it would violate our own beliefs, so now all of a sudden we get self-righteous about the Constitution and it becomes sacred. In the end, it depends on whether or not we agree with the Constitution, doesn't it. Perhaps you and I think it is wrong to treat people unequally, but what if others don't think it is wrong? Why is this a moral standard that we are bound to follow? How is morality determined? If it is determined only by men, then it has to be changeable and fallible, right? I mean morality has changed greatly over the centuries hasn't it? So why is this particular moral principle unchangeable? Of course atheists have morals and personally I think that is one thing that should lead to their recognition of some kind of a God. If we humans didn't have a God-given conscience, we would have self-destructed long ago. Fortunately, God wrote His laws on our hearts so that most people do agree on the biggies of morality like killing, stealing, adultery, lying, etc. None of us can claim to be free of sin, but we at least have a basic understanding of the difference between right and wrong, thanks to our Creator. Oh, by the way, God may not be mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Here is an addition to my last post:I also have a problem with same-sex relationships because the main purpose for sex, that of procreation, is lost. The sexual revolution has taught us that sex is mainly for recreation and our society has bought the lie. We are reaping the consequences of this: higher and higher divorce rates, single parents, unwed mothers, gay rights movement, etc. Sex is also meant as a means of promoting marital unity and harmony. Unity is the purpose of marriage and the sexual act is a beautiful picture of this unity. This too is important. It is why the Bible says that actually it is a sin not to have sex if you are married. However, this beautiful picture of unity is destroyed by homosexual sex. Page not found | National Review Bill Bennett writes:"The homosexual movement cannot tolerate the persistence of mores that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman, the marriage relationship as the proper context of sexual expression and the family as the unit formed around that nucleus. To normalize homosexuality requires us to deny that man linked to woman is both natural and ideal Ethat it is the purpose of our human sexuality Eand to affirm the aberrant view that sexuality is an arbitrary construct and choice. The homosexual vanguard proposes to replace sexual identity Ethat inescapable fact of nature that we are created male and female Ewith sexual behavior as a fundamental organizing principle of society. And if sexual behavior is the determinant, then appetite is the guiding principle." We heterosexuals and homosexuals both have to remember that we are not just grown-up apes free to act out whatever animal instincts we may feel. We have a higher calling and we have moral limitations that are there for our own good. We deny this at our own peril. We are human beings made in the image of God with a purpose - to reflect the glory of our Creator. Homosexual relationships and many heterosexual relationships as well do not do this. Regards, TJ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member  Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Tokyojim responds to me:
quote: Prove it. Your quotation from the ACLU says nothing about how one goes from same-sex marriage to polygamy. You are confusing that there are people who are fighting for both with the idea that the reasons they are fighting for both are the same.
quote: But you haven't explained how same-sex marriage leads to polygamy. Be specific. What is it about recongizing that marriage is not dependent upon the sex of the participants that logically and necessarily leads to recognition that marriage is not dependent upon the number of participants?
quote: You should know that quoting from The Weekly Standard significantly weakens your argument. This is the same publication that was the mouthpiece of the Arkansas Project and claimed that Clinton murdered Foster. You will notice, for example, that the article merely says that the Loving More group is modeling their movement on the gay rights movement. It doesn't say that their justification for polygamy has any connection to the justification of same-sex marriage. After all, the gay rights movement was modeled after the movements for equality on the basis of race and sex. Are you saying that this makes the fights against slavery and against sex discrimination illegitimate because they led to people fighting for equal treatment under the law for gay people? After all, the arguments for equal treatment under the law on the basis of race are identical to the arguments for equal treatment under the law on the basis of sexual orientation. Take a look at Loving v. Virginia which declared all miscegenation laws unconstitutional and declared marriage to be a fundamental right. Was that case wrongly decided? We shouln't have allowed people to marry people of another race because the same argument could be used to allow people to marry people of the same sex?
quote: Incorrect. There is plenty of morality. Or don't you find treating people with dignity and respect and equally under the law to be moral? You seem to think that because I actually consider the question and have a desire to hear the reasons people give to justify it to mean that I have already accepted the outcome. Because I don't have a knee-jerk response against the idea, that must mean I embrace it. I would think that my list of questions would be indicative of a position that there are some real problems with the idea of polygamy. Here's something for you to ponder: Restriction of a legal contract by the number of people is not unprecedented (S-corporations, for example, are limited to 75 people). Too, restriction of marriage by the number of people does not prevent anybody from getting married. However, restriction of marriage by the sex of the people does prevent some people from ever getting married. I find it hard to believe that you don't think I understand that there is a difference between same-sex marriage and polygamy.
quote: And that's wrong because of what, precisely? You are confusing the fact that I have a different morality from you with the idea that I don't have a moral standard at all.
quote: Incorrect. It will simply mean something different from what you think it means now. Marriage will be a loving, mutually supportive relationship between people wherein they combine their emotional, financial, and sexual beings together. I dare say you already understand this meaning...you have just tacked on the idea that it can only happen between a man and a woman. Well, not too long ago we thought that it could only happen between people of the same race. Marriage seemed to survive the idea that race had nothing to do with marriage. So what makes you think that marriage will become meaningless if we realize that it has nothing to do with gender? I don't understand how letting more people get married somehow undermines the institution.
quote: What consequences? You seem to think that society will crumble if we allow families to form as they are needed. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? After all, every study of families headed by same-sex partners show that they have the same outcome as families headed by opposite-sex partners. In fact, if we look at the countries that allow same-sex marriage, we find that gay couples have a lower divorce rate than straight ones. Even in this country, if we look at the length of relationships, we find that gay couples stay together longer than straight ones. If you are truly of the opinion that providing support structures for families so that they stay together, then you should be fighting tooth and nail for gay couples. In fact, you'd be trying to find out why they seem to be able to make it stick better than straight couples.
quote: Only in the most naive sense. There are two parents. You seem to think that the law should care about the sex of the parents. How does that change anything? Be specific.
quote: The same thing that happens when a mixed-sex couple gets divorced. No different.
quote: Again, only in the most naive sense. The law already understands how to deal with the situation where one of the parents is not the biological parent. My sister, who has two children from a previous marriage, recently got married to a man who has four children of his own. What would happen if they were to get divorced? What about couples that go through surrogacy? We already have processes in place to deal with the situation where one person in a marriage is the biological parent of the children and the other is not. Hell, let's bring up adoption: In that case neither person is the biological parent. What happens when they get divorced? So seeing as how the law already knows how to deal with all of the cases where one or even neither of the parents is biologically related to the children, how does having the parents being of the same sex change anything?
quote: Then you should be fighting for the elimination of divorce, not the elimination of marriage.
quote: You're confusing single-parent households with two-parents-of-the-same-sex households. This was brought up in Baehr v. Miike in Hawaii when they were going through the question of same-sex marriage. Even the state's own lawyers couldn't come up with any evidence that indicates children raised in households headed by gay parents had any difference in outcome compared to children raised in households headed by straight parents. What seems to make a difference is not the sex of the parents but the dedication of the parents.
quote: Sterile peole cannot produce children and yet we don't have a fertility test to get married. We don't have a law saying that married couples must produce children. You cannot get your marriage annulled simply because you don't have children. Are you saying that my parents' marriage disappeared the moment my father got a vasectomy?
quote: So we should abandon adoption, too? The real mother and father are either unknown or denied parental rights and you have substituted parents of some sex.
quote: So we should get rid of adoption? The child is denied both the real mother and father.
quote: So we should get rid of adoption? It is unnatural and not good for a child to be raised in a loving home by parents who jumped through hoops in order to gain custody of a child that isn't even theirs. Instead, we should leave them in the care of the state, housed in orphanages, right? How loving and merciful you are. It's so obvious that it's much better not to have any parents at all than to have two of the same sex.
quote: Then you should be fighting for the elimination of adoption. After all, to simply satisfy the desires of some mixed-sex couple to have children at the expense of the children's best interests is just plain old selfish. Do you have any evidence that same-sex couples harm children? The State of Hawaii tried to find some and couldn't. What do you know that they don't?
quote:quote: You don't understand what consent is, do you? Question: If your child is capable of giving consent to have sex with someone of the opposite sex, why are they incapable of giving consent to have sex with someone of the same sex? What does the sex of the other person have to do with it? Why can your son agree to take a girl to the prom but not a boy?
quote: Because it is immoral to abuse animals.
quote: So gay people aren't people, they're just animals? I still don't understand how you can go from a mutually supportive, loving relationship between two people who can give consent to having sex with an animal. If having sex with someone of the opposite sex doesn't lead to bestiality, how does having sex with someone of the same sex do it? How does changing the sex of the people involved lead to changing the species?
quote: If you don't milk the cow, she'll be in pain. And as for killing cows to eat them, talk to the vegetarians. Surely you aren't comparing having sex with someone of the same sex to murder, are you?
quote:quote: That your argument has no logic.
quote: Yes, you did:
And, what is to prevent acceptance of sex with animals or adult sex with children if both are individuals are consenting? Marriage is about sex. Since we're talking about same-sex marriage and you brought up children and animals, then you're talking about marrying children and animals. I brought up the lawn mower because it's usually the third one in the list: If we allow same-sex relations, then we'll have to allow people having relationships with children, animals...and lawn mowers (though a car is a popular substitution for the lawn mower).
quote: Don't worry, I won't. You need to keep up your end of the bargain, however, and not deny things you actually said.
quote:quote: Incorrect. Did you or did you not say the following:
And, what is to prevent acceptance of sex with animals or adult sex with children if both are individuals are consenting? Since you're the one who brought it up, you must be of the opinion that allowing people of the same sex to marry will necessarily lead to bestiality and child molestation. Therefore, the question stands: How does allowing two people of the same sex to marry lead to child abuse or bestiality any more than allowing two people of the opposite sex to marry? What is it about being of the same sex that leads to bestiality or molestation? What is it about being of the opposite sex that prevents them? Since all the evidence indicates that gay people are much less likely to molest children than straights, how does allowing gay people to marry increase the likelihood of molestation?
quote: Three things. 1) You did say it.2) Ergo, you are arguing it. 3) It's "moot" point. A "mute" point would be a point that can't speak. Are you claiming you didn't bring up NAMBLA? How can you possibly say that you aren't saying that accepting gays leads to child molestation if you insist on discussing them?
quote:quote: No, no "buts." If that is the way it is, then there are no buts. I recognize the fact that NAMBLA exists. What you need to do is show that there is any connection between NAMBLA and the gay community. Links from Leadership University and NARTH do not count. They are known frauds.
quote:quote: So we shouldn't have allowed marriage between people of different races. After all, the justification for allowing marriage between people of the same sex is exactly the same as the justification for allowing marriage between people of different race.
quote: Hmmm...treating people equally under the law, making sure that the public knows that it's a question of equal treatment, making those who seek to deny equality look bad, and organizing together in order to put forward that idea. Here are some quotes from it:
Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal. The way to benumb raw sensitivities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open and frank talk makes the subject seem less furtive, alien, and sinful, more above-board. It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle. The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. How "radical." By the way, could you show me anywhere in that article where it talked about pedophilia or bestiallity? Here's the only reference I could find:
It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, [Ed note -- North American Man-Boy Love Association] must play no part at all in such a campaign Seems to go along with my original comment: NAMBLA is not supported by any gay rights groups.
quote:quote: But that doesn't answer the question. How does allowing people of the same sex to get married lead to the abolition of marriage? How does fighting for the right to get married lead to taking away marriage?
quote: Why not? Marriage isn't about children. If it were, we would have fertility tests before marriage and non-procreation would be valid for annulment. Getting sterilised (currently the most preferred method of birth control for married couples) while married would lead to immediate dissolution of the marriage as would entering menopause. Women who had gone through menopause would not be allowed to get married. So now that that's out of the way, what is unique about a mixed-sex relationship that a same-sex relationship cannot have? Note, claims of "complementarity" of the sexes are rejected out of hand as there is no such thing. By mere inspection, same-sex couples are just as loving, just as committed, just as dedicated as opposite-sex couples.
quote: You still haven't given any reason why same-sex marriage leads to polygamy. I've asked you directly multiple times. Why are you hesitating? Walk me through the process: How does recognizing that the sex of the partners involved in marriage is not relevant to the institution of marriage lead to a claim that the number of people involved is not relevant? How does not caring about the sex of the partners change the definition of marriage from a loving, mutually supportive relationship whereby the partners join their emotional, financial, and sexual futures together?
quote: How? Do you really think that if a woman walks up to you and says, "This is my wife," you won't understand what she means?
quote: Again, anything by The Weekly Standard is suspect. For example, the article you quoted couldn't show any connection between same-sex marriage and polygamy or the abolution of marriage. Instead, it whined about the conference and then in a complete non sequitur launched into a tirade against same-sex marriage, claiming sans evidence that those who support same-sex marriage are actually trying to get rid of it. The same question needs to be put to them as I put to you: How does fighting for marriage lead to the abolition of marriage? And the North Carolina Family Policy Council is discarded out of hand. They, like the Family Research Council and the Traditional Values Coalition, are nothing more than a special interest group bent on making sure that gay people are not treated equally under the law.
quote:quote: "Separate but equal" is unconstitutional. We've already been through this before with segregation. If the civil contract between people of the same sex is going to be identical to the civil contract that already exists between people of the opposite sex, then it necessarily needs to be called the same in order to make sure that all laws that affect one also affect the other. Because if one does something the other isn't, then they are not equal and the Constitution demands equal treatment under the law.
quote: How is it not? Be specific. Remember, people who can't have children still get married, so obviously marriage has nothing to do with children or the ability to have children.
quote: Are you seriously saying that if a woman were to come up to you and say, "This is my wife," you wouldn't understand what she meant? What would change in marriage if we allowed people of the same sex to get married? Be specific. Would it require married couples eat off of Wedgewood china? Would it require all married couples to own a gun? Would it require all married couples to register as Independents? Force them to drive a Volvo? Does allowing people of the same sex to get married result in the word "marriage" meaning "a pale shade of green"? Come on, spit it out. What about marriage would change if we allowed people of the same sex to get married? No, no cockamamie predictions about "what happens next." I want to know the specific things that would happen right then and there. If Jane and June get married, what does that mean to John and Josie? Will they need to file their taxes in any different manner?
quote:quote: Incorrect. Mixed-race marriage is legal and it isn't illegal to say it's a sin. You're avoiding the issue. You were asked a question about marriage and you responded with a statement about speech. Why do your religious beliefs get to be made law?
quote: How? How will allowing people of the same sex get married change anything about the way you practice religion? Again, we allowed people of different races get married. There are plenty of people who think that's a sin and they are quite vocal in their denouncement of same. They aren't restricted from practicing their religion the way they see fit. So what makes you think that allowing people of the same sex to get married will result in you not being allowed to say that homosexuality is a sin? Are you seriously saying that your religion requires the government to say that being gay is illegal?
quote: How? Be specific. Does same-sex marriage lead to inflation? Rising interest rates? Urban sprawl? Weakening consumer confidence? War in Iraq? Tidal waves? Plaids with stripes? Brad Pitt movies?
quote: Yes, because I can't find a single thing that is negatively impacted by treating gay people equally under the law. In fact, all results seem to be that when we treat gay people equally under the law, things get better. F'rinstance, if we were to allow same-sex marriage, California would save nearly a quarter billion dollars a year in welfare payments as the couples would be treated as married rather than as single. Think of what we could do with that money. Heck, we could cut taxes and you'd get it back. Don't you want the state to save money? Don't you want lower taxes? Then you should be in favor of same-sex marriage.
quote: And? How does same-sex marriage interfere with that? How does celebrating a loving, mutually supportive relationship result in the downfall of society? Aren't we trying to guide people into such relationships? Don't we as a society want people to be happy and healthy? And if marriage is one way to achieve that end, why are you trying to stop people from getting married?
quote: You're avoiding the question. We all understand that you have a different religion than crash. Go right ahead. Nobody is trying to stop you. The question is:
Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? Be specific: How does the marriage next door affect you? Does it make you not married? Does it make you want to get married to someone you normally wouldn't want to?
quote: Prove it. How does the couple next door affect you? Be specific.
quote: Incorrect. It applies to gay couples, too.
quote: No, I did. But they were by Focus on the Family and thus they were dismissed out of hand. They're frauds.
quote: Um, you didn't mention anything about mothers or fathers in your post. You only mentioned that in this post. Remember when you were complaining about me putting words in your mouth? Well, it would do you well not to put them in your own mouth. Part of the bargain of honest debate is that you don't misrepresent yourself. That said, I'll repeat my argument: You are being extremely naive in saying that same-sex relationships "deny access" to parents. You seem to think that there are things that only mothers or only fathers do. Simple observation belies this attitude. All research into children raised by opposite-sex and same-sex parents show that there is no difference in outcome for the children (except that children raised by same-sex parents tend not to be as much against homosexuality than children raised by mixed-sex parents...go figure.) Do you have any evidence that a same-sex couple deprives a child of anything?
quote: Incorrect. It is a chimera of your imagination. Being raised by two parents of the same sex denies a child nothing that a mixed-sex couple can provide.
quote: Indeed. All the research backs up the result that gay parents are just as good as straight parents and children raised by gay couples suffer no deprivations of anything.
quote: Incorrect. What they're saying is that the sex of the parent has nothing to do with parenting skill. What can a woman do in parenting a child that a man can't? What can a man do in parenting that a woman can't? Be specific. What is it about having two X-chromosomes that makes a person incapable of the parenting skills that a person with one X and one Y can do?
quote: Incorrect. What they are seeing is that a child needs both parents...the sex of those parents is insignificant. You are trying to compare a child raised by a single parent with children raised by two parents. Instead, you need to compare children raised by two mixed-sex parents with those raised by two same-sex parents. Turns out there is no difference. The State of Hawaii tried their damnedest to prove there was a difference but even their own witnesses were forced to conclude that there was no evidence that being raised by gay parents did any harm. Again, your link to Focus on the Family is dismissed out of hand.
quote:quote: Um, gay people have sex quite readily. Obviously, there is no physical barrier to the process and thus, it is completely natural. In fact, there is nothing that gay people can do to each other that straight people can't (well, I can think of one thing, but it requires two uncircumcised men...perhaps a similar thing could be achieved by two women with their breasts)
quote: But the mere existence of gay people proves that this is not universal. While a penis and a vagina can be utilized, that isn't the only way to have sex.
quote: Fine, I'll be blunt: If the anus were not meant to take a penis, it wouldn't fit so well inside, now would it? And it wouldn't feel so good, now would it? Why else would the prostate gland be placed such that rectal stimulation is the most direct and pleasurable way to get at it? And what is different about a woman's tongue that her performing oral sex upon a woman is different from a man doing the same thing?
quote: No, it doesn't. Only one sex gives birth. What does the other one have to do with it? Now, don't be disingenuous and claim that I am saying that fathers aren't important. I am merely pointing out that you are picking and choosing things you want to pay attention to and ignoring everything else. If a man can come to love and be invested in the rearing of a child that he did not give birth to, why does it matter if it's two men? By your logic, we should eliminate adoption since that requires both biological parents to be denied. And if we allow that completely unrelated people can raise children without harm, then why does it matter what sex those unrelated people are?
quote: Yes. For to say otherwise would mean that adoption is unnatural and that would mean that my ex was damaged goods for being adopted. What is natural is for people who are emotionally invested in raising children be the ones to raise children. The sex of the parents doesn't enter into it. All the research shows this to be the case. What makes for a good outcome is the connection between parent and child, not the sex of the parent.
quote: So was slavery and the subjugation of women. We managed to realize that just because things are traditional doesn't make them right. By the way, the Catholic church performed same-sex marriages. Same-Sex Marriage in Premodern Europe by John Boswell.
quote: No, not always. Children were the property of the father for a long time. The mother didn't enter into it.
quote: Incorrect. American Indian religions had the "two-spirit" people. They were often considered the most holy of people.
quote: You need to look harder.
quote:quote: No, that's the law. The Constitution means something. You don't get to ignore it when it's inconvenient.
quote: Since when was it established that I'm an atheist? You seem to be confused. Just because I don't believe in your god doesn't mean I don't believe in any god.
quote: Incorrect. Surely you aren't saying that atheists have no morals, are you? Just because morality is arbitrarily created and societally conceded doesn't mean it isn't absolute. The rules of Monopoly are completely arbitrary and even change from game to game. One common variation (so common that it's now being included in the set as an option) is that all the money collected from Chance and Community Chest cards gets put under Free Parking. Anybody who lands there gets whatever money is there at the time. And yet, once the rules are established and agreed upon, they're absolute. Cheat at the game and you're still cheating, subject to the penalties ascribed by the rules and the other players.
quote: But that's irrelevant. Answer crash's question:
Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? Your god can have all the admonitions against same-sex marriage you want. Why does your religious opinion get to be made law? Especially in a country that expressly forbids such?
quote: But you haven't shown any negative influence. How does same-sex marriage affect you in any way? Be specific.
quote: Irrelevant. I am under the opinion that the government should treat people equally under the law.
quote: It's called the Constitution, it was written by humans with no appeals to god, and it is absolute for all citizens of the United States.
quote: Then they have broken the law and are subsequent to the punishments that are allowed under the Constitution.
quote: Who cares? I won't be around to guarantee that. In this country, the only absolute is what the Constitution says. What god thinks about it is up to god. Now, what does this have to do with equal treatment under the law? Are you saying that if the couple next door gets married, that will make you do something that you don't want to do? That it will cause you to violate your oath to god? That you will abandon your religion? Start blaspheming?
quote: Because the Constitution says we can't get away with inhumane treatment of people. Because we as a society have realized that unequal treatment does not advance society.
quote: No, it isn't. You're confusing the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution doesn't mention god. The first words are "We the People," not "In Deference to God." Besides, the god mentioned in the DoI isn't the god you're talking about. How lucky you are that the Constitution allows you to worship a different god from the founding fathers.
quote: Sure there is. The Constitution. It's arbitrary, it can be changed, it was written by humans, it makes no reference to god, and it is absolute.
quote: Of course. All mature societies re-evaluate themselves constantly.
quote:quote: Says who? You? Why should we believe you? The existence of gay people proves you wrong.
quote: Who cares? Our society is not beholden to your god. Our Constitution expressly forbids religion from being a foundational principle of the law and that's absolute. Answer crash's question:
Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? And again, Focus on the Family is discarded out of hand. Your article references Paul Cameron...a man who was thrown out of all the psychiatric associations due to his unethical and fraudulent practices. I directly confronted him with a lie. In one of his pamphlets, he claimed that gay men engage in "gerbiling," the insertion of a live gerbil into the rectum, and he cited Cecil Adams, author of The Straight Dope, as a reference. The problem, however, is that the article by Adams that Cameron references says the exact opposite. That while there are lots of urban legends about gay men doing this, there is absolutely no evidence that it has ever taken place:
Is it true what they say about gerbils? I have checked with numerous sources in both the gay and medical communities, and though everybody has heard about gerbil stuffing, every attempt to track down an actual case has come to naught. Now, why would Cameron say this? Why would Cameron write a pamphlet that says:
Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with "fisting," where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when "toys" are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum--bottles, carrots, even gerbils (8). With footnote 8 being:
8. Cecil Adams, "The Straight Dope," THE READER (Chicago, 3/28/86) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the U.S. and Canada]. When, as we just showed above, the actual article by Cecil Adams indicates that there has never been a documented case of a gerbil being inserted into the rectum by anybody, let alone a gay man? And why would Focus on the Family reference it when it is so obviously false? Now do you understand why all source material from FotF is discarded out of hand? They're frauds.
quote: Because your paranoia over the behaviour of people when it doesn't affect you is not our concern.
quote: We are. That's why we are pushing for same-sex marriage. It is only fair to the children of gay people that their parents gain the benefits and privileges of marriage. Why should the children of one lesbian not be allowed to inherit from their other mother simply because she wasn't the biological parent? Why should children be kept out of happy homes and relegated to the custody of the state simply because the parents who wish to adopt them are gay? You need to stop thinking about yourself and start thinking about the children.
quote: Can't be done. All studies into it have shown that "reparative therapy" doesn't work. There's a reason that the APA has rejected it. Have you ever wondered why NARTH and Exodus and all the other "ex-gay" groups don't keep any records on outcome? It's because it doesn't work and they know it. Are you aware of just how many times the poster boy for Exodus has gone back to his gay ways? From current closet case Paulk all the way back to the founders of the group. Exodus has never been able to present someone who has truly "worked through and overcome" homosexuality.
quote: It's an absolute standard of behaviour. Whether that equates to morality depends upon your definition of morality.
quote: Because we as a society agree to be bound by it. It isn't like you go to court and the judge says, "I know that the First Amendment says that there is freedom of assembly, but I'm feeling cranky today so you don't get to have it today," and have that judgement be respected. The Constitution is absolute: Freedom of assembly for everyone all the time.
quote: The Constitution. Fourteenth Amendment:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. quote: Actually, the Fourteenth Amendment is only 135 yeas old.
quote: Because we as a society agreed to it.
quote: No, we are trying to re-interpret it (witness Bush's "faith-based" initiative), but it still means what it has always meant: The government keeps its nose out of religion and religion keeps its nose out of government.
quote: Because the First Amendment is still in the Constitution.
quote: Too bad. The Constitution is absolute and applies to everybody. By being a citizen of the United States, you agree to abide by it. If you don't like it, you are free to leave or attempt to have the Constitution changed.
quote: I daresay that they would say the opposite to you: The fact that atheists have morals should lead you to recognize that morality is not something one receives from god.
quote: Who said it was god-given? The existence of atheists proves that statement wrong. Atheists have no god and thus, no god-given conscience. And yet, they still have a conscience. So obviously, having a conscience does not mean it was given by god.
quote: Indeed. But there are two things that you must remember: 1) The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It has no bearing on the administration of the government. If you go to court, you cannot make a claim to the DoI as justification. The Legislature and Executive are granted no powers under it. 2) The god mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is not the same god you worship. Aren't you glad that the authors of the Constitution had the foresight to say that you had the right to worship a different god from them?
quote: But marriage isn't about children. If it were, sterile people wouldn't be allowed to get married. If it were, post-menopausal women wouldn't be allowed to get married. If it were, non-issue would be a valid reason for a marriage to be annulled. But none of these things are true. Marriage is about sex. If you don't have sex, then you can get the marriage annulled. That means the marriage never existed in the first place. When the INS looks into marriage with regard to fraud, one of the things they investigate is whether or not the couple has had sex.
quote: So explain to me how encouraging gay people to get married leads to less marriage? And since gay marriages tend to last longer than straight ones, wouldn't we want to encourage that?
quote: So wouldn't encouraging people to get married be a good thing? Why are you trying to stop people from getting married if you are trying to get people to marry? Gay people are going to have sex. They are going to form partnerships. If marriage makes it better, why are you trying to stop them?
quote: So why are you trying to stop gay people from reaping the benefits of this boon?
quote: National Review? Rejected out of hand. Bill Bennett? Rejected out of hand.
quote: Precisely. You need to put aside your animal jealousy and pride and start to treat all people equally under the law. That's what mature people do.
quote: Indeed. And one of those moral limitations is recognition that all people are to be treated equally under the law. That your personal opinion about god is fine and dandy...for you. However, other people believe differently and your opinions about god don't apply to them. Now, answer crash's question:
Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? quote: BZZZZT! Pascal's Wager. I'm so sorry.
quote: Says who? You? Why should we believe you? The mere existence of gay people proves you wrong. Now, answer crash's question:
Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Pretty soon polygamy gets Okd and then group marriage and then what is marriage?
Polygamy OK'd, eh? Too late.... how many wives did Solomon have, again?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days)  Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I don't want to get into this argument too deeply as I'm sure my stance on this topic would be pretty obvious to anyone who knows my posts already. For those unaware, I'm for very broad rights for everyone. But I thought I should correct you on a couple of matters (or maybe show them from a different perspective).
While I agree with your basic stance on gay marriage, I do not think it is correct to say the defense of gay marriage says nothing about the rights of polygamous or groups marriage. You seem to have hung a differentiation based on some financial/property rights differences between each arrangement. Unfortunately that is not what the argument for why gays should be allowed to marry is based on, and just because the f/p rights may have to be a bit more thought out in the case of polyamory would not dismiss the original argument for being able to marry who you choose in the way you choose. The argument from the Xian camp is that it is their tradition (and the nation's tradition) that marriage is one man and one woman (ignoring of course those that did not follow that tradition). To allow some other definition of marriage to exist legally, ends the tradition. The argument from gay marriage advocates is that one has a right to create new traditions. Just because a new or foreign tradition is allowed to exist under law does not actually end the other tradition. No one is forced to engage in the new tradition, and people may in fact continue to look down upon anyone who engages in it. Its just that in a free country it is a violation of equal rights to say one tradition (esp. based on religion) must be the tradition of all, under force of law. In this argument there is nothing about how complicated the marriage certificate might have to be. Frankly there are more complex certificates and definitions of f/p rights for rich people getting married than would be for a simple polygamous marriage. Thus Tokyo is correct that allowing gays to marry is opening the door for other kinds of marriage. Personally I could care less, and think Tokyo should calm down as how he chooses to define marriage never has to change. As soon as gov't tells people what they have to think about marriage, I'll be with Tokyo. And on the slippery slope to marrying kids... (I'm with you in part on this one Rrhain) what does gay marriage have to do with age limits? The fact is some states already allow for marrying kids and that is under the current one girl one boy definition of marriage. Everyone does understand that age limits on marriage vary from state to state and dip pretty low in some states, right? That of course allows children to consent to sex at those young ages, so that slippery slope is already in existence too... without gay marriage existing. In fact the Bible Belt is home to some of the youngest ages for consenting to sex and marrying as a kid. Hmmmmmmm, are they gay or something? So I'm not quite sure what Tokyo is carping about on that topic. As far as bestiality goes, further down the slope, you (Rrhain) say that it is bad to abuse animals. I wish that abuse argument worked both directions. How many dogs have tried to hump me I have no idea, but it sucks for me because I'm not into dogs. But because of this I'm a little skeptical on believing all bestiality is actually abuse. Europe has no laws against this and if you've ever been to a porn shop there (or just a regular local video store) you'll notice they seem to really dig it (yeah, even jaded ol' me was shocked at what I saw on the shelves). Yet Europe is not collapsing and marriage between people seems to keep going strong. I think there is way too much fear about allowing others to live how they want to live, to pursue their own kind of happiness, to start their own traditions or live openly under the traditions they have lived with for years in secret. As long as nobody's tradition is removed from practice by the opening legality of a new one, what does anyone have to complain about? Trying to trap this country in Xian amber, as this amendment would do, is not going to make it more beautiful or strong. It will be divisive and thus weaken and make ugly a land which is supposed to be the free-est in the world. Frankly our being the free-est country in the world is the only damn tradition I thought was supposed to be our shared and greatest tradition. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote: Then be specific. What is it about the justification for same-sex marriage (equal treatment under the law, marriage is a fundamental right, the sex of the people involved in marriage is irrelevant) that can be carried over to an argument for polygamy? Not being able to marry two people does not prevent people from getting married. Preventing people of the same sex from getting married does prevent people from getting married. This takes care of both equal treatment and fundamental rights issues. Altering the sexes of the participants of marriage changes nothing about the administration of marriage. Changing the number of the particpants changes many aspects of the administration of marriage. Ergo, the arguments that support same-sex marriage cannot be used to support polygamy. That doesn't mean there are no arguments to support polygamy. It simply means that the arguments that support polygamy are not shared by the arguments that support same-sex marriage.
quote: Yes. That's the point: Same-sex marriage changes absolutely nothing about the way marriage is administered. Creating the legal contract of marriage between two people does not hinge upon the sex of the participants. It does, however, hinge upon there being only two. There may be simple things that can be done to adjust marriage for more than two people, but the simple fact remains that changes to the actual legal contract of marriage would have to be made in order to accomodate polygamy whereas nothing needs to be changed in order to accomodate same-sex marriage.
quote: And that's precisely the point! The justification for same-sex marriage cannot be transferred over to polygamy. Contrast this with the justification for interracial marriage. The arguments used to allow marriage between people of different races are identical to the arguments used to allow marriage between people of the same sex.
quote: But that isn't a justification for same-sex marriage. Being able to marry whom you choose in the way you choose is not the reason that same-sex marriage should be allowed. By that logic, the simple act of marriage in and of itself would be justified by that and by simply allowing marriage in the first place, we should allow polygamy. Therefore, the justification is not same-sex marriage but simply marriage.
quote: But the question is why should the Christian tradition be forced upon everybody else? Especially in a country that specifically forbids religion from being the basis for law? We all recognize that the most popular Christian sects do not approve of same-sex marriage. More power to them. But by what right do they get to determine the law for everybody else? There are many religions that celebrate and sanctify same-sex marriage. Why don't they get to have a say?
quote: How? How does allowing same-sex marriage stop mixed-sex marriage? How does making a legal definition change a religious tradition? For example, the law allows any two people of any religious background to get married. Many religions, on the other hand, will refuse to marry people from outside the faith. Strict Catholicism doesn't recognize divorce unless it is sanctioned by the Church. So with all of these examples of religions understanding the difference between a legal contract and a religious rite, why are they picking on same-sex marriage? This is the same tactic in creationism regarding "it's just a theory." Well, gravity and germ infection and quantum mechanics and photons are all "theories," but you never see the creationists whining about them being "just a theory." So why are they picking on evolution?
quote: Incorrect. You still haven't displayed any reason why polygamy would need to be supported given the justifications for same-sex marriage. Being able to "create new traditions" is not a legal question and even so, it can be applied to the concept of marriage in and of itself. Therefore, it isn't same-sex marriage that results in allowing polygamy...it's marriage, itself. For example, some say that same-sex marriage would lead to incestuous marriage. But how? How does the specific act of two people of the same sex marrying lead to allowing incestuous marriage in a way that two people of the opposite sex marrying does not? It is not enough to say that something that could be applied to same-sex marriage might also be applied to polygamy or incest. You have to show why it is unique to same-sex marriage and not something that could also be applied to mixed-sex marriage. If it applies to both mixed-sex and same-sex marriage, then the justification is about marriage in and of itself, not same-sex marriage in particular.
quote: OK, this is just me being anal...feel free to ignore: "Couldn't" care less. If you could care less, how much less could you care?
quote: Well, incest is assumed to be abuse, too, even though I can handily conceive of ways in which it wouldn't. Consider, for example, fraternal twins separated at birth, rasied apart, and miraculously reunite in college, not realizing that they are related. No abuse there. And yet, we still say that incestuous relationship are abusive because that's the typical way things go about. There is a legitimate interest in preventing abuse and while it sucks to be on the receiving end of the restriction, them's the breaks. Again, not being allowed to marry your sibling does not mean you can't get married. Not being allowed to marry your dog doesn't mean you can't get married.
quote: That goes back to crash's question:
Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I think you did not understand my post. I didn't want to get deeply into this for the very reason that my opinion is pretty close to yours and crash's, so mine is redundant.
There is no reason, especially in this country, for fundamentalist Xians to think their definition of marriage should be imposed on others. The only thing I was really doing is enhancing a couple of your own arguments, or degrading Tokyo's, and correcting you on one point. Now it seems you didn't get what I was saying on that point. The legal argument being made is that marriage by tradition is one man and one woman. Fundamentalist Xians are appealing to the fact that Supreme Court has upheld that traditions are allowed to be protected by law to make their case. The pro gay marriage advocates are arguing that allowing for this does not destroy that tradition (churches can refuse to do such services or recognize them socially), and so Xians cannot use that cover for their legislation. That is the argument laid bare. It does not matter that there are few or many changes to the way a marriage contract is laid out. Such things are wholly irrelevant. This argument certainly does give equal cover for polygamous or other less "traditional" marriages. Your own statement of why it wouldn't be the same appears to be based on a similar ethnocentric bias. There are parts of the US and there are foreign countries which have polygamous marriages. Marriage has never been exclusively just one man and one woman in the grand scheme of things. The difference between one man and one woman, and one man and one man, or one white man and etc etc is the same difference of one man and two women. Other than how it is handled on paper (a couple extra lines?) what is the difference? I think it a very odd perspective that it is a few lines of text which would disallow one, yet allow another. In that case Xians could argue that the space where spouse is written (traditionally the woman) would have to be changed. And any mention of different sexes would have to be changed (which is part of every civil service until changed by law). There would also have to be special consideration for kids of one parent, or the other. Are they adopted or what (because they can't be biological)? Actually I've already seen those arguments... and they were dismissed. The only argument that Xians can make which can stand Constitutional inquiry is protection of cultural tradition. If "1 man and 1 woman" are out as cultural traditions in need of protection, then states are free to change any of those numbers or words. This is of course why there is an amendment being floated. With an amendment in place the SC wouldn't have to address any changes in marriage law at all. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote: ...by those seeking to keep marriage sexist. The argument made by those seeking to legalize same-sex marriage has little to do with "tradition." The argument is not, "Let us make our own traditions." It is, "The concept of equal treatment under the law clearly prohibits restriction of marriage based upon sex." The response to "But it's traditional" is "So what? Law is not based upon tradition but upon doing what is right by the Constitution."
quote: No, it is not. The argument put forward by those wishing to keep marriage sexist is that somehow by allowing same-sex marriage, it "changes" marriage. But it doesn't. Nothing about the administration of the legal contract of marriage changes.
quote: Incorrect. Such things are the only thing we are to concern ourselves with. Would the actual contract of marriage change and is there any compelling reason to deny same-sex marriage? No? Then it must be allowed.
quote: Not at all. I handily admit that there may be plenty of reasons why we might want to allow polygamy. I'm simply pointing out that the reasons why we might want to allow it don't correspond to the reasons we would want to allow same-sex marriage.
quote: The point is that it is handled differently on paper. Since polygamy changes the actual administration of marriage, which same-sex marriage does not, the questions of those changes need to be dealt with. That doesn't mean there aren't good answers for them that lead us to conclude that polygamy should be legal, too, but those questions and answers have nothing to do with same-sex marriage (other than the simple fact that marriage among three people necessarily requires at least two people of the same sex.)
quote: Why? There are other contracts that are limited by the number of people allowed to be in the contract. Therefore, there may be reasons to limit the number of people in a marriage contract. Again, we may be able to come up with answers to those that are satisfactory. But we won't find those answers by looking at same-sex marriage as distinct from mixed-sex marriage. The question of the sex of the participants is distinct from the question of the number of participants.
quote: No, because "tradition" isn't sufficient. Lawrence v. Texas showed that. Nobody is preventing Christian "tradition" by allowing same-sex marriage.
quote: Of course. And it will be the first time (or second, depending upon how you count Prohibition) that the Constitution was amended to specifically deny rights to citizens of the country. The push behind the amendment is an appeal to "tradition" as we have seen in all the various DOMAs that exist. But the laws that exist do not mention "tradition." After all, what does that mean? It's such a clearly unconstitutional concept (why one tradition over another? Doesn't the First Amendment have something to say about that?) that they simply discard it in the law and simply state that marriage is between one man and one woman. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
I am unsure how to get through to you on this, but you are wrong and being stubborn in refusing to understand what I am saying.
quote: This statement is contradictory as the second half is saying that progay marriage proponents want to practice (in this case start) a tradition where marriage is open to homosexual partners. Ergo, gays should have the right of equal treatment under the law to practice marriage unions as they see view marriage... unconstrained by definitions of sex. If it is not saying that then Xians would have no problems at all, a gay man has equal rights under the law to marry a woman if he wants to. He simply can't marry a man because by legal definition marriage is one man and one woman.
quote: Honestly, this shows a poor understanding of what is happening. The Supreme Court has set precedent that traditions may be protected by law. As much as I find that a horrific concept prone to abuse, that is the reality on the ground. It is this precedent that heteromarriage advocates are using, and if homomarriage advocates do not address this point at all then they are going to lose. After all, as in the example I gave above, there is no equal right infringement for a gay man can marry any woman he wants. What gays are asking for is the right to legally redefine marriage as between two individuals instead of one man and one woman. The SC could technically hand a victory to both sides (if the gaymarriage advocates argue strictly along equal rights) by saying that marriage can and shall remain defined as one man and one woman, as long as "civil unions" are made available to grant them the same legal benefits of marriage (except for use of the name). This ruling would even be tolerable to many fundamentalists... but not to every gaymarriage advocate.
quote: I wish you would not say that they are trying to keep marriage sexist. I agree that gays should have the right to marry, but those that oppose it have nothing against either sex. They want to keep their tradition of defining marriage legally as one man and one woman. If you cannot recognize that changing the legal definition from that to "two individuals" is not changing marriage in any way, what can I say? And I do not know if you have been married or looked at how marriage is handled across the states, but this does change how they will have to be administered legally (ie contractually). You don't get to say, "well you just put a guy's name in where it says wife". In that case one can just as easily say you put more than one name in where wife is, or you simply fill out one more copy (for the second wife).
quote: This is the same for polygamy. Unless you have some compelling reason? Other than more than one name on the contract, or multiple copies, there is no problem here. It would be as difficult as handling the marriage of a person who has been married once (or more than once) before. And there will actually be more complicated issues with regard to children in a gay marriage than in a polygamous union.
quote: You know this doesn't even make sense given your own argument from protection of equal rights (separate from tradition). Equal rights protects you unless it would call for papers to be handled differently? If that were true, what a flimsy idea equal rights are.
quote: There are also contracts which limit the type of people or companies allowed to be in the contract. Therefore there may be reasons to limit the types of people in a marriage contract? I would like you to list some reasons to limit the number of people in a marriage contract. Other than this assertion, I am unaware of any logical or historical reasons to limit this.
quote: While they are clearly separate in a personal perspective, from the vantage point of equal rights to be married in the way you would like to define marriage, there is no distinction. In fact, if distinct then gay marriage is even worse off. More cultures in this world (even historically) and in the US accept the definition of marriage to include more than one partner, rather than defining it as being between two people of the same sex. Marriage originated in the concept of uniting a man and a woman specifically because they will produce children together. Children from this union become heirs to the resulting fortunes (or misfortunes), as well as the collected wealth or power of both families. Homosexual unions do not produce heirs any more than a single person adopting a son or daughter. Thus marriage was never really conceived of as necessary. So at least polygamous marriage is tied into the basic concept of marriage, while gay unions are a bit of a stretch.
quote: I am unsure why you brought up Lawrence v Texas, the arguments in that case have no connection whatsoever to cases regarding gay marriage. I agree whole-heartedly with you that nobody is preventing Xian tradition by allowing same sex marriage. I was simply saying that appeals to protecting their tradition is the only chance they have. It is the only argument which has SC precedent behind it. This means Xians have very little chance of succeeding, unless gay marriage advocates argue as you suggest they are doing (ie equal rights separate from conducting marriage according to gay concepts or traditions of marriage).
quote: This is slightly unfair to the fundies. The reason laws don't mention tradition is because they never had to. They just say what they say. Then people can point to the history of what they have said to document the tradition surrounding whatever (in this case marriage). Without question, marriage has been between men and women throughout american history. It has sometimes included more than one spouse, and in some cases excluded separate races from intermarrying (which could be argued along the same lines as proscriptions against incestuous marriages), but has NEVER until within the last ten years, included homosexual unions. Thus there is a HUGE tradition of marriage being defined as hetero. Nevertheless, the valid question is whether that hetero tradition ends by opening up the laws to accepting new homo traditions? And the pretty clear answer is no. As long as one is able to marry according to the historical tradition one's family has encouraged, or one wants to set for the future, nobody's traditions are being infringed upon. But that is for the SC to decide at some point I guess, unless an amendment is passed. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote: Have you considered the possibility that I would say the same thing to you?
quote:quote: Only in the most naive sense. The only difference between a mixed-sex marriage and an opposite-sex marriage would be the sex of the participants. Nothing more would be expected of one compared to the other.
quote: No, not as they view marriage. As everybody views marriage. Question: What about marriage is different when the people involved are of the same sex? Other than the simple fact that the people involved are of the same sex, there is nothing different. Ergo, it isn't a new tradition.
quote: Yes, and rich people are prevented from sleeping under bridges just as much as poor people are. The point is that gay people don't want to marry straight people and vice versa. Yes, it happens, but usually because of some outside coercive factor.
quote:quote: Didn't you read the Lawrence v. Texas decision? Didn't you read the response to Bowers v. Hardwick?
quote: No, the SCOTUS just overturned that concept. Yes, Bowers v. Hardwick had a justification based upon "tradition," but even Justice Powell admitted he screwed up on that case and the Lawrence v. Texas decision makes it clear. Just because something has always been done doesn't make it constitutional.
quote: Only on the basis that votes are not questions of law but questions of emotion. I mean, if you look at Scalia's opinion on the Lawrence v. Texas case, he has obviously taken leave of his senses. The concept of two people of the same sex being in love sends him into fits of apoplexy and he cannot think straight. As Pat Schroeder said, "The Pledge of Allegiance says, '... with liberty and justice for all.' What part of 'all' don't you understand?" (and I say that in regard to Scalia and those who think like him.) The idea that we can withhold constitutional rights from people simply because it has been "tradition" to do so goes directly against the Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment means something.
quote: And again, rich people aren't allowed to sleep under bridges any more than poor people are. There is an equal right infringement, however. Why is it my sister can marry a person I cannot just because I happen to be a male? I don't have the same rights as my sister. There are people she can marry that I cannot.
quote: True. The question is: What does that change in the actual practice of marriage? What does the sex of the individuals involved in a marriage have to do with anything in the actual practice of marriage?
quote: It would be unconstitutional. "Separate but equal" isn't. If you're going to offer marriage, you need to offer it to everyone.
quote:quote: Why not? That's exactly what is going on. Why is it my sister can marry someone I cannot simply because of my sex? Homophobia has roots in sexism. Take a look at one of the common questions people use to taunt gay men: "Who's the woman?"
quote: They most certainly do. They seem to think that there is something unique about each sex that the other cannot provide. Look at their arguments about the "complementarity" of the two sexes. They aren't talking simply about the penis and the vagina. Look at how they claim that a child raised by two women is going to be "deprived of the male influence" as if that means something.
quote: But their "tradition" is a religious one. The law doesn't pay attention to religious traditions in this country. It's specifically prohibited from doing so.
quote: I keep asking you to give me examples of how the actual practice of marriage would change if the particpants are of the same sex and you can't give me any. So if we can't come up with a single difference between a same-sex marriage and a mixed-sex marriage other than the mere fact of the sex of the participants, then we are left concluding that there is no change.
quote: Sure you do. More accurately, you'd simply change "husband" and "wife" to "spouse," but those are merely labels. Marriage wouldn't be any different if we called the participants "lovers," would it? There is no contractual duty that a "wife" must provide.
quote: But a spouse has legal claims upon the other spouse. Adding another one requires us to determine what their legal relationship is.
quote:quote: No, it isn't. The actual contract of marriage would change. Again, there is a legal claim by one spouse upon the other. If we add another one, what do we do when there is a conflict? If one pair in a polygamous relationship has children, what is the legal relationship of the other spouse(s) to the children?
quote: Sure there is. Who is "next of kin"? Certain legal decisions can only be made by next of kin. If they both are, how do we adjudicate conflicts?
quote: No, it wouldn't. A person who has been married before but isn't now is no longer married. Thus, other than those established by the divorce proceeding, there are no legal claims by the former spouse upon the person.
quote: Why? Be specific. How would same-sex marriage be any different from mixed-sex marriage adopting a child or where one member of the couple is infertile and the other is the genetic parent? Since we already have structures in place to deal with the legal relationship between parents and offspring when one or both of the parents are infertile, why would the parents being of the same sex change anything?
quote:quote: The fact that it needs to be handled differently means it needs to be examined to see if there are any compelling reasons not to do it. There may not be, but we need to look at it in order to make sure. Same-sex marriage doesn't need to be handled any differently from mixed-sex marriage. Therefore, there are no compelling reasons not to do it.
quote: You're missing the point. For the umpteenth time: There may be perfectly good answers to the questions raised by the administrative changes required to recognize polygamy such that we conclude there is no reason to deny it. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are administrative changes that need to be made in order to handle polygamy. It actually changes the practice of marriage. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, doesn't do this. There is no practical difference between a same-sex marriage and a mixed-sex marriage. Therefore, what difference does the sex of the partners make?
quote:quote: Indeed. We don't allow incestuous marriages. However, preventing incestuous marriage does not prevent a person from getting married at all. Preventing same-sex marriage does prevent people from getting married, period. The claim that a gay woman can marry a man just as easily as a straight woman is naive.
quote: Why? I'm not arguing against it (nor am I arguing for it, lest someone misunderstand.) A married person has a legal claim upon the spouse. Benefits can be paid out to a spouse...so what happens when there is more than one? Again, there may be a very good answer to this question (f'rinstance, rather than providing a full insurance benefit to each spouse, you get a single insurance benefit that is divided equally among all spouses, if such can be done, or provided only to a single spouse if it cannot be.) But the fact remains that we had to ask this question in the first place simply because we have more than one spouse to contend with. We don't have to ask these questions with regard to same-sex couples compared to mixed-sex couples.
quote: Since I'm not arguing against polygamy (or for it), I fail to see why you want me to come up with reasons to deny it.
quote:quote: Incorrect. They are distinct from a practical perspective. The actual practice of marriage will change if we increase the number of people involved. It does not change if we change the sex of the participants. Preventing polygamy does not prevent a person from getting married at all. Preventing same-sex marriage does.
quote: "Tradition" doesn't have any basis for law. Are you seriously saying that we should allow constitutional rights to be denied to people simply because it is "traditional" for us to do so?
quote: But marriage isn't about children. If it were, we would require a fertility test before allowing people to get married, non-issue would be grounds for annulment, and getting sterilized or going through menopause would dissolve a marriage. Since none of those things are required, marriage is clearly not about having children. While it is true that marriage has an effect upon any children arising from the couple, it is not the point of marriage.
quote: Actually, a parent is not required to leave anything to his children. If there is no will, then the children do have a claim upon the estate, but that is true without regard to the marital status of the parent at the time of birth.
quote: So? Infertile couples do not produce heris any more than a single person adopting a son or daughter does, either, and yet we still allow them to get married.
quote: So why do we allow sterile people to get married?
quote: Where in the marriage contract do you find anything about the requisite of children? Where in marriage law do you find anything about the requisite of having children? While it may have been the case in previous times that men have tried to get rid of their wives for not producing a male heir, there is no such right in these days. "Tradition" has nothing to do with it.
quote:quote: Didn't you read the decision? One cannot deny rights to gay people as a class. The Massachusetts decision on same-sex marriage referred to it. Here's an excerpt from oral arguments of Lawrence v. Texas (by Paul M. Smith, arguing against the Texas statute):
This case is very much like McLaughlin, Your Honor, where you have a statute that said, We’re going to give a specially heightened penalty to cohabitation, but only when it involves a white person with a black person. That interracial cohabitation is different, and the state there made the argument, We’re merely regulating a particular form of conduct, and that’s a different form of conduct than interracial cohabitation. And this court very clearly said, No, you’re classifying people; and that classification has to be justified. So don't you think this concept applies to marriage? Classifying people on the basis of their sex and saying that a man cannot marry a man simply because he is a man is not allowed. And here's an interesting excerpt...it's from Charles A. Rosenthal, Jr., who was actually trying to defend the Texas sodomy statute:
Well, historytraditiondoes not matter in terms of whether or not it can be a protected liberty interest. That seems to be what I've been arguing: Tradition has no place in denying protected rights. Just because we've always denies constitutional rights doesn't mean we can continue to do so. And if you're still stuck on tradition, let me point what Justice Breyer said about Bowers v. Hardwick and it's claim of "tradition":
It got the history wrong. And in relating it to the argument before him in Lawrence v. Texas, Breyer had this to say:
Now, that’s the kind of argument that they’re making. Harmful in consequence, wrong in theory, understating the constitutional value. But let's get to the actual decision by the SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas:
The Bowers Court was, of course, making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as im-moral, but this Court’s obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850. And let's not forget Romer v. Evans in Colorado. Amendment 2 was added to the Colorado Constitution that specifically prohibited equal protection clauses from being enacted in Colorado that specifically deal with sexual orientation and then went a step further to say that gay people had no right to appear before a court on a claim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court clearly stated that you cannot disenfranchise an entire class of people from the law. The Lawrence v. Texas opinion even referenced Romer v. Evans:
Casey, supra, at 851 which confirmed that the Due Process Clause protects personal deci-sions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and educationand Romer v. Evans, 517 U. S. 620, 624which struck down class-based legislation directed at homosexualscast Bowers’ holding into even more doubt. quote: Nope...they've clearly indicated that there is no justification in appeals to "tradition." Rights are rights enjoyed by all and we cannot deny them to certain classes of people simply because it has been "traditional" to do so. Again, from the Lawrence v. Texas decision:
In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapprov-ing of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical as-sumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been re-jected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the pro-tected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the gov-ernmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable com-mand. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828. quote: Indeed, Christians have very little chance of succeeding. "Tradition" has no place when it comes to questions of rights. Surely we do not deny people their rights simply because it is "traditional" to do so.
quote:quote: So? Do they seriously expect us to go along with the claim that we should deny equal rights to people they don't like simply because it's "traditional" to do so?
quote: So? The fact that gay people haven't had the courage to speak up until now about their being denied equal treatment under the law should be held against them?
quote: Yes, but if you look at the various statutes of certain states, they don't all directly claim that marriage should be between one man and woman. That's why the court cases have been showing up in the states they have: The Hawaii law specifically did not mention the sex of the people involved and thus, given that the Hawaii constitution has an ERA clause regarding sex, there could be no basis upon which to deny marriage based upon the sex of the participants. The fact that only mixed-sex couples ever took advantage of it until recently shouldn't be held against same-sex couples.
quote: But if race has no bearing upon the fundamental right of marriage (Loving v. Virginia), surely sex doesn't have any bearing, either.
quote: No, it couldn't. Incest is almost always a coercive, manipulative relationship. There is a vested state interest in preventing abuse.
quote: It still isn't. There is no state that allows same-sex marriage. Even the Massachusetts law doesn't go into effect for months.
quote: Irrelevant. Tradition is not a valid justification for the law. Surely we aren't going to deny people their rights simply because it has been "traditional" for us to do so, are we?
quote: They pretty much already have. What needs to happen now is for a case with standing to come up with regard to DOMA. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You have a tendency to overdue your arguments and it simply does not help your cause. You keep saying that I am being naive, but in fact you are being deliberately obtuse... well either that or you are so entrenched in your mindset that you cannot acknowledge alternate view points.
I see what YOU are saying. And I agree with the opinion that marriage is basically a way of uniting individuals legally. So race or sex or etc etc make no difference. However that does not mean I have to stick my head in the ground on what the history of marriage is (I cannot believe you tried to pick that apart), or what other people are thinking/saying about marriage (we don't have to agree with their opinion in order to understand what they are saying). If marriage did not come about from the traditional man/woman structure leading to children I would like you to explain how it came about. While there are often religious structures and ideals around it, that is how it CAME ABOUT. Of course infertile couples can get married, and parents don't have to leave anything to their kids, but to deny this was the historical beginning of marriage as the institution we know and practice it in this country is simply absurd. Because of this history, people in this nation wrote laws on how to legally handle marriage from the perspective of hetero relationships. I don't even think it involved a conscious effort to exclude homosexuals, they simply had no conception of marriage involving people of the same sex. This created a traditional legal definition of marriage. There is a man and a woman. And in some areas this allows for more than one partner, but the difference in sexes remains. To now say that marriage should be changed to include same sex unions, is to make a change to the legal definition. Here's an analogy... automobiles have come to have a traditional legal definition, and automobile licensing has solidified legal definitions of what an automobile is as well as what such licenses cover. Someone asking to license their brand new tracked vehicle as an automobile is asking the government to change the legal definition of automobile and the tradition of what such licenses cover. Now you and I can both agree that in practice this involves such a minimal difference that to quibble about such a change is ridiculous on their part. We can even agree that behind many of these people thare is an intention to disempower homosexuals because of religious prejudices. However that does not change what they are arguing, and the fact that they are right that the legal definition of marriage is going to be changed... and once change is allowed for the equal rights of one group to extend this definition, more groups will also be supported. This includes polygamy, unless an arbitrary judgement is made that they are different. I am unsure if you have been through a divorce or been around real messy divorces and then remarriages and then more divorces... and mix into it estates and businesses. The details of a polygamous marriage (which by the way there are already legal standards on how they can be conducted) are generally less complicated than remarriage or marriages involving large wealth. In fact it is no different than regular marriage. You simply have obligations to more than one person (and they to you). That's about as difficult a concept as a person having multiple obligations to different creditors. The only complication in this matter seems to be coming from you thinking it is such a huge change. And ironically it is that same stance being taken by foes of gay marriage. To them having two same sex people will involve more change than it actually involves. You don't have to ask me what is the difference between a straight or gay marriage. There will be none... other than the complications that can occur in any other marriage, and in this case guaranteed, regarding children (which will probably involve the same complicated legal scenarios as adoption... not sure if you've seen that either). And there won't be greater complications in a polygamous marriage other than what would occur in 1-1 marriages with extenuating circumstances (children from previous marriages and property/business held with former partners). Personally I was disappointed with your casual dismissal regarding polygamists...
quote: Other than different concerns (as every marriage has its specific issues), there is no change to marriage itself. As I have already pointed out, and you have yet to address, marriage to more than one person is known and recognized within certain areas of the US and in plenty of places outside the US, and that has been the case for centuries. Men marrying men as not been. What's more, and this is where I was particularly disappointed, you did not recognize that polygamists were not being robbed of anything. What legal rights does a father have over his second partner's children if he is not legally considered their parent? How does this affect all of them financially? If his second partner goes to a hospital he will not have rights to go see her as a husband would... sound familiar? They are simply asking not to have their mutiple relationships disregarded, as everybody with singular commitments has. Oh great, according to you polygamists still get to choose one husband and one wife! If that is exactly what they don't want, how is this a break on their part? If you really think that argument holds true for polygamists, then you should have no problem for a gay person being forced to marry an opposite sex partner if they want to get married. Like the polygamist, they simply cannot be married to whom and how they would like.
quote: And then you backhand these people. Incest is almost always blah blah blah??? Exactly what definition of incest are we talking about here? The legal concept of incest differs from state to state and country to country, and so are allowed in some states and not in others. I am unaware of statistics showing that incestuous marriages have resulted from abusive relationships. I'd love to hear you tell a nice loving couple that the state has a right to break them up, because people think such relationships come from abuse and so the state has a right to prevent that abuse by telling those that aren't abusive that they can't get married. Yeah that makes as much sense as saying gays can't get married because they are statistically nonmonogamous.
quote: Well I could very well be wrong about this, but doesn't vermont have legal same sex unions? I thought that was one of Dean's big campaign points. I totally admit I could be wrong. And finally, yes I have read Lawrence and Bowers, and it was not accurate to compare the use of tradition in that, to "protecting the traditional legal definition of marriage". The former was saying that there was a legal tradition of prosecuting homosexuality, the latter is that the legal definition of marriage has been hetero. There is a big difference between differentially punishing a group for the same act others get to do, and a groups not having been included as part of a legally defined entity that other groups engage in. I agree that there is no reason to continue excluding that group from that entity, or at least an entity with similar rights. But that does not change the fact that there is a difference, and there is a SC precedent of allowing protections for traditional legal definitions/entities. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
No, I'm saying that once you change the definition of marriage once, there is no stopping it. Yes, you're absolutely right. Once we changed marriage from "a structure for the economic exchange of women" to "a recognized bond between persons in love" about 100 years ago, there was absolutely nothing to stop us from applying it to all persons in love. [This message has been edited by crashfrog, 12-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
holmes responds to me:
quote: Because you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Yes, by changing the sex of the partners involved in a marriage, it is technically "different" from a marriage where the partners are of opposite sex. But by that logic, a marriage between Joe and Jane is "different" from a marriage between Zoe and Zane. Thus, by allowing Zoe and Zane to get married, we are changing the "tradition" of marriage because before, only Joe and Jane were married. That is a very naive way of looking at something. It is akin to saying that a blue car is "different" from the identical car with a red paint job. Yes, the two are not perfect clones of each other, but the color of a car does not actually do anything to the functionality of the car.
quote: Then why do you keep trying to slip out of it? Crash's question is:
Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? So whines of "tradition" hold no place.
quote: But we're not. Marriage has already changed over the years. But that's irrelevant. People today aren't getting married by the legal standards of 500 years ago. They're getting married by the current legal standard (and in the US, that means the Constitution). Therefore, we have to go by that standard and not some nostalgic pining for the past. As I asked you directly multiple times, surely you aren't saying that we should deny people their constitutional rights simply because it's been "traditional" for us to do so, are you?
quote: Agreed. But there is a difference between understanding what they are saying and coddling them because of it. For the umpteenth time, they can have whatever religious/cultural/personal objections to same-sex marriage they want. More power to them. The question, however, is this:
Why do specific Christian beliefs allow Christians to dictate what everybody can or can't do? quote: Doesn't matter. People getting married today aren't getting married by the standards of thousands of years ago. They're getting married, at least in the US, under the auspices of the Constitution which guarantees equal treatment under the law. This means that you can't be forced into marriage, can't marry a close sibling, can marry someone of a different race, can marry outside your faith, etc., etc. If we get to say "tradition" is sufficient legal justification for preventing same-sex marriage, then that means that Loving v. Virginia which struck down miscegenation laws was wrongly decided and we should go back to disallowing it. After all, public opinion was even more against mixed-race marriage at the time it was decided than current opinion is against same-sex marriage. And even then, the problem with the whine of "tradition" is that it isn't even a valid claim in a practical sense. By allowing same-sex marriage, not a single "traditional" marriage is affected in any way, shape, or form. My family has their traditions for celebrating the holidays. Strangely enough, the fact that other families celebrate them in a different manner doesn't affect my family's traditions. To whine that by allowing someone else to do something different changes "tradition" means that their action will somehow affect you. If it doesn't affect you, then "tradition" hasn't changed.
quote: Incorrect. It is the only thing we are allowed to do. Surely you aren't saying that people can be denied their constitutional rights simply because it was "traditional" for us to do so? That because gay people have only now had the courage and ability to raise awareness of their situation, that should be held against them? "Liberty and justice for all." What part of "all" is so hard to understand?
quote: True, but only on the surface. What changes in the actual practice of marriage by allowing two people of the same sex to get married? What is the difference between a red car and a blue car?
quote: Invalid analogy. A more accurate one would be that the first cars coming off of Ford's lot were all the same color. In fact, there was a cliche about that...you could have whatever color you wanted, so long as it was black. Someone decides they want a car that isn't black. Does that mean the definition of a car has changed? Is the color of a car truly part of the the definition of a car? Oh, people may think that, and it certainly is "tradition" that cars are black, but what does that have to do with anything? Just because people think something doesn't make it so. Be specific: Other than the sex of the participants, what is the difference between a same-sex and a mixed-sex marriage?
quote: Thus, you understand that your analogy was completely invalid. The differences among a car and a truck and a tank and a motorcycle are functional and practical. The difference between a same-sex and a mixed-sex marriage are surface and label.
quote: It does, however, remove all validity from their arguments. They can whine "tradition" all they want, it is irrelevant. We do not deny people their constitutional rights because it is "tradition" for us to do so. The Fourteenth Amendment is clear: Equal protection. What part of "equal" is so hard to understand?
quote: Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that the reasons why marriage will be changed for other groups will have nothing to do with why it changed for same-sex couples. How does same-sex marriage lead to polygamy any more than mixed-sex marriage does? Same-sex marriage doesn't change the practice of marriage. Polygamous marriage does. There may be very good reasons to allow polygamy, but the fundamental difference between same-sex and polygamous marriage is the fact that the practice of marriage will change.
quote: But that is different. A responsibility to more than one person is very different from a responsibility to only one person. Question: Does that responsibility require equal treatment of the multiple people or do we establish a minimum standard and as long as that is met, you can treat the other members unequally? That's a question you simply do not need to ask when there's only one person to be responsible for. The practice, therefore, is changed and cannot be compared to same-sex marriage since same-sex marriage doesn't change the practice of marriage.
quote: I don't recall mentioning how drastic a change it would be. In fact, I distinctly recall stating multiple times that there may be very good answers to the questions of how to regulate polygamy. The point that I have been making over and over again which you have missed over and over again is that polygamy actually requires the practice of marriage to change. You mentioned a tendency to "overdo" my arguments. Well, now you just found out why: It seems that I can state something explicitly, directly, and clearly and nobody seems to be able to remember it for more than two seconds. Please tell me, how many times do I have to say it before you remember it? There may be good reasons to allow polygamy, but the practice of polygamy is different from the practice of monogamy. The addition of more people into the contract causes certain questions to be asked that need to be answered. It doesn't matter if those questions are big or small, the only thing that is relevant is that those question exist. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, doesn't change anything about the practice of marriage. We don't ask any new question in a same-sex marriage compared to a mixed-sex marriage.
quote: So we should coddle this fallacy? There is a difference between what people think will happen and what will actually happen. For the umpteenth time, be specific: What will change in a marriage if the sex of the participants changes? "Tradition" is irrelevant. The question is a legal one, not a religious one.
quote: Then the claim that marriage will somehow "change" by allowing people of the same sex to get married is fallacious. That's the argument that is being made: That allowing people of the same sex to get married somehow "changes" marriage. Really? How? How does it change? Be specific. Does a same-sex couple have to deal with extra property taxes? Do they get extra votes in the local election? Diplomatic immunity? What specifically about a marriage between people of the same sex is different from one between people of the opposite sex other than the surface fact of the sex of the participants? Since we don't really claim that a marriage between Joe and Jane is "different" from a marriage between Zoe and Zane, even though the participants are different people, what is "different" about a marriage between Joe and Zane?
quote: But that's just the point: Mixed-sex couples adopt children all the time. So what's different about a same-sex couple doing it? Do they get a lower standard of competence before approval? Are they only allowed to take hard to place children? They need to pay a different filing fee? What is different about a same-sex marriage that never happens in a mixed-sex marriage?
quote: Incorrect. In a regular marriage, it's pretty much precedent that any children that arise are automatically considered the children of other spouse. If a man and a woman are married, she has an affair, gets pregnant, and gives birth to a baby that isn't his, he's still considered the father because they're married. But with a marriage between people who have had children previously, that does not happen. You have to formally adopt the children of your new spouse in order to be considered the legal parent.
quote: Personally, I am very disappointed that you can't seem to remember something for longer than two seconds. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it? There may be good reasons to allow polygamy, but the practice of polygamy is different from the practice of monogamy. The addition of more people into the contract causes certain questions to be asked that need to be answered. It doesn't matter if those questions are big or small, the only thing that is relevant is that those question exist. Same-sex marriage, on the other hand, doesn't change anything about the practice of marriage. We don't ask any new question in a same-sex marriage compared to a mixed-sex marriage. Before you respond, try repeating this to yourself, "He thinks there may be good reasons to allow polygamy...He thinks there may be good reasons to allow polygamy...He thinks there may be good reasons to allow polygamy...He is not arguing against or for polygamy...He is not arguing against or for polygamy...He is not arguing against or for polygamy...."
quote: Sure there are. If Person A marries Person B and then Person B marries Person C, are A and C married? Is marriage transitive? That's a question you don't need to ask when considering same-sex marriage compared to mixed-sex marriage. There may be a very good answer to that question, but that is irrelevant. The point is that you need to ask the question in the first place. Letting people of the same sex get married does not require anything to be different compared to letting people of the opposite sex get married. Letting more than two people get married does require things to be different compared to only two people getting married. Once again, in case you have forgotten, there may be perfectly good reasons to go along with those changes. That is immaterial, however, because the point is that there are changes in the first place.
quote: Incorrect. I have addressed it. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it? "Tradition" is irrelevant. Don't you remember what I said in my last post regarding the SCOTUS and the claim of "tradition"? Since you seem to have forgotten it:
Nope...they've clearly indicated that there is no justification in appeals to "tradition." Rights are rights enjoyed by all and we cannot deny them to certain classes of people simply because it has been "traditional" to do so. Again, from the Lawrence v. Texas decision: In the United States, criticism of Bowers has been substantial and continuing, disapprov-ing of its reasoning in all respects, not just as to its historical as-sumptions. And, to the extent Bowers relied on values shared with a wider civilization, the case’s reasoning and holding have been re-jected by the European Court of Human Rights, and that other nations have taken action consistent with an affirmation of the pro-tected right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate, consensual conduct. There has been no showing that in this country the gov-ernmental interest in circumscribing personal choice is somehow more legitimate or urgent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable com-mand. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828. And then I stated it directly:
Tradition has no place in denying protected rights. Just because we've always denies constitutional rights doesn't mean we can continue to do so. And again:
While it may have been the case in previous times that men have tried to get rid of their wives for not producing a male heir, there is no such right in these days. "Tradition" has nothing to do with it. And again:
"Tradition" doesn't have any basis for law. Are you seriously saying that we should allow constitutional rights to be denied to people simply because it is "traditional" for us to do so? And again:
But their "tradition" is a religious one. The law doesn't pay attention to religious traditions in this country. It's specifically prohibited from doing so. And again:
No, the SCOTUS just overturned that concept. Yes, Bowers v. Hardwick had a justification based upon "tradition," but even Justice Powell admitted he screwed up on that case and the Lawrence v. Texas decision makes it clear. Just because something has always been done doesn't make it constitutional. And that was just in a single post. Do you really want me to go through all my other posts to show you how many times I have said this? You wonder why I keep "overdoing" my posts? Because you apparently can't seem to hold a concept in your head for any length of time. How many times do I have to say something before you remember it?
quote: Incorrect. Did you even bother to read my post before responding?
Preventing polygamy does not prevent a person from getting married at all. Now tell me, why should I care about your feelings of disappointment when you're not even giving me the courtesy of paying attention?
quote: Like I said...that's a question that needs to be answered. There may be a very good answer for it (and how many times have I said that? See what I mean about paying attention?) but the existence of a good answer does not alter the fact that there was a question to be answered in the first place.
quote: Yes, indeed, it does. But here's the thing: A person who is not allowed to marry more than one person is not prevented from getting married in the first place. A person who is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex may then be effectively prevented from getting married at all. I recall having said that once before. Weren't you paying attention?
quote: And there may be very good reasons to do so (why does that phrase sound so familiar?) However, the practice of polygamy is different from the practice of monogamy. The fact that we can come up with a viable contract for polygamous marriage doesn't change the fact that it is practically different from the contract of monogamous marriage. There may be very good reasons to allow polygamy (there's that phrase again...I wonder who came up with it?), but it requires rethinking the practice of marriage.
quote: Yep. Compare this to gay people who get to choose between no spouse and no spouse.
quote: It means they are not disenfranchised from the system that currently exists. A person who wants to marry more than one person is not prevented from getting married in the first place. A gay person, however, can't get married at all. There is a significant difference from saying that your car can only do 65 mph at the most and saying that you aren't allowed to drive.
quote: It has no connection. You are trying to compare a situation where someone can exercise a right but has a limitation placed upon it and one where someone is not even allowed to exercise the right.
quote: But they can still get married. People who would like to have a polygamous relationship are still allowed to get legal sanction for a loving relationship that they are in. Gay people cannot. Where are they supposed to go?
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? Are you seriously saying that most instances of incest are loving, mutually supportive relationships rather than manipulative and coercive? As I said (you were paying attention, weren't you?) I can conceive of an incestuous relationship that doesn't involve that. Take two fraternal twins, separated at birth, who manage to meet again in college, not knowing that they're siblings. No coercion, no manipulation. Do you really think that that's a common scenario compared to a father molesting his daughter? To a cousin who babysits her younger cousins? To all the ways in which the power imbalance is played to coerce the other family member into a sexual relationship?
quote: Sex with a close blood relative. You know...the legal definition.
quote: Because incest, in and of itself, is illegal.
quote: Already have. And we already do all the time. There's a reason we have age-of-consent laws. From a purely realistic viewpoint, they are ludicrous. The ability to give consent doesn't appear magically at a certain age. It is a process of logic and rationality. Alas, we don't have the time and resources to test everybody for the ability to give consent, so we have to take a pragmatic approach. We know that consent doesn't come magically at a certain age, but we do realize that people who are a certain age tend to have the ability to give consent. Sucks to be you if you're one of the people who gets that ability early. You'll just have to wait. Preventing incest does not prevent a person from ever having a relationship. It sucks to be you if you're one of the people that have managed to find love in a close blood relative without manipulation or coercion. You'll just have to look elsewhere. Where is a gay person supposed to go to find a loving relationship?
quote: No more so than straights. Ergo, invalid argument.
quote:quote: That isn't marriage. There are over 1000 federal rights that are provided by marriage that are not provided by "civil union." Too, the marriage contract travels with you from state to state. "Civil unions" do not. A person can dissolve the marriage contract through divorce in pretty much any state. That isn't the case with "civil union." In fact, there have been some cases regarding just that where states refuse to do so because by giving a declaration of "divorce" in the case of a civil union would imply that they would recognize the legality of a civil union, which they do not do.
quote: Not quite. Not even Dean supports same-sex marriage. Only Kucinich does.
quote: Why not? If "tradition" cannot be used to support the disenfranchisement of gay people with regard to sexual activity, why can it be used to support the disenfranchisement of gay people with regard to marriage?
quote: But the argument is the same: What does "tradition" have to do with it? Are you saying that we should deny people their rights simply because it has been "traditional" to do so?
quote: No, not really. "Liberty and justice for all." What part of "all" is so hard to understand? "Equal protection." What part of "equal" is so hard to understand? If you're going to offer marriage, then you need to provide it to everybody and any restrictions on it need to be justified and reconciled with the Constitution.
quote: But current precedent is that "tradition" doesn't enter into it. They stated so in Lawrence v. Texas, they stated so in Romer v. Evans, and both of those decisions cited other cases that indicated as such, too. You cannot deny people their rights simply because it is "tradition." ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Silent H Member (Idle past 5850 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Ahhhh, it's so funny that we almost always share the same view but are so helpless in communicating with each other.
I fully understand you are not against polygamy. My argument is not that at all. My argument is that you are missing the very real point that equal rights to marriage will cover them as much as homosexuals. My only departure is an astonished reaction to you believing that them getting to marry one partner is somehow giving them something that gays are not. Is the point that people just want to get married, or that they want equal legal recognition and so rights, accorded to the relationships they are having? Gays can get married all they want, they just don't get rights regarding their loved ones. The idea that polygamists have some advantage because they have rights regarding one of their partners, instead of to everyone that is important to them, seems to misunderstand what the pursuit of liberty and happiness really mean to the polyamorous. Conservatives are correct that opening up the legal definition of marriage will prevent it from returning to a closed position (to paraphrase crash who put it so well, once marriage becomes all about love it will cover all kinds of love). The ability to consent may very well remain an issue. Thus the very young may still be prevented from marrying. But flimsy issues such as "we might have to answer a question on how to handle X" (which occurs as much for gay as polygamous marriage) will go by the wayside. I agree with you and crash that tradition should NOT be a factor in making laws stick, even traditional legal definitions. You can quit arguing with me on that point as you are preaching to the choir on that one, and it is not what I am saying. While you me and crash may have a unanimous opinion on this, you MUST recognize that the rest of the US is not in agreement on that subject. What's worse the SC in specific has upheld that legal definitions based on cultural traditions are able to be protected. I do not know why, it seems unconstitutional to me, but it is very real. And no matter how much you post to the contrary, Lawrence and Bowers was dealing with a different use of "tradition" in law. You are equivocating. Lawrence etc etc was about a tradition of punishing one group of people differentially for an act allowed to others. The tradition of marriages being hetero was not a punishment against homosexuals. I would agree with you that it seems a punishment or at least differential treatment to prevent gays from creating new laws to allow for their marriage (at least in rights if not in name). But you must recognize at the outset that there is a difference between Lawrence etc etc and gay marriage, that the SC has a precedent for defending legal definitions/traditions (which do not involve differential punishment) and that is exactly what conservatives are trying to hang their hat on. It is such a flimsy hat stand that they are already rushing to an amendment to move around the SC. Okay, so what we have is them using a perhaps true, but very weak and extremely odious legal argument, that they realize is so weak that it will probably cave. That does not mean we cannot recognize that it is what they are saying and that it has a chance of winning, even if we don't like it. But more to the point, my only issue with your argument (and all I was trying to say in my first post) is that gay marriage will change the definition and practice of marriage as much as polygamy. Not that that gives a reason to deny gays marriage... just that they all change the practice of marriage (as much as that jane/joe zoe/zane example you gave). Allowing people of the same sex to marry does not simply change names on a legal contract. And it will carry with it legal questions... regarding children. You may think these questions are so easy they are already answered in your head, but that is simply excusing gay marriages from the same problems polygamous marriages would face. You ask if A marries B and B marries C, is A married to C? Are you joking? The answer is within the question itself. No. Only if A marries B and C, and B marries C would C and A have any connection. The question is only raised in the same strange way people ask gays who is the wife? It is an incredulity spawned by simply not thinking about the question, and how ridiculous it is. If you can handle the concept of owning several credit cards, you can handle the concept of polygamous marriage (one to many). If you want a polygamous marriage in the style of many to many, then it would simply be a network of banks extending credit to each other. The marriage contract itself tells you who is beholden to whom. How many questions can polygamy possibly raise, and what marriage practices (other than concepts) would be changed? As I have stated, polygamy and incestuous marriage have been and still are practiced in various regions of the US. This should make it pretty obvious that polygamy or incest does not change the conception of marriage one iota... other than some traditional ideas regarding what a marriage is supposed to be. You are right in saying that the practice of polygamy is different than monogamy, but monogamy has no connection to the practice of marriage (other than in the traditional conception variety). Outside the prevalent tradition of monogamous Xians putting into their laws that marriage is defined as a single man and woman, there is nothing that links monogamy and marriage... especially when marriage is viewed historically. I tried to address this as well by bringing up one of the cliched arguments conservatives have used to dump on gay marriage. They show that statistically gays are nonmonogamous, and even within a socially monogamous relationship tend to accept sexual promiscuity. Thus gays cannot fit the traditional definition of marriage which CONSERVATIVES consider linked to monogamous social and sexual practices. But it's not is it? I would also point out that your arguments against incest were the same ones used against homosexuals for years (perhaps centuries). You say it is illegal. Well that sure is convenient, so was homosexuality, until attitudes changed. And while it was illegal there were many instances of abuse associated with its practice. In fact people would generally not talk about it except in association with abuse. While there is no doubt that sexual abuse occurs in incestuous relationships, they occur in many other kinds as well. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that incest is naturally based, or has a proclivity toward, abuse. You might be able to claim that relatives in power are more likely to commit incestuous abuse, but the idea that incest is necessarily a result of abuse by relatives has not been made beyond anecdote. Your stretched example of the only sure noncoercive kind being relatives that never knew they were relatives suggests some personal bias on your part. Why does falling in love with a relative you know is a relative mean abuse has occured, or is going to occur? And exactly how many abusive incestuous relationships lead to a couple trying to get married? This seems ridiculous on its face. Even if abuse occured inside the family, incestuous abuse is unlikely to become an incestuous relationship, which is even less likely to result in a desire for incestuous marriage. By the way as I have stated, states allow incestuous marriage of varying degrees to occur. So your stating you use "traditional definitions of incest" when talking about coercion and abuse means nothing. What is a common definition of incest as it is applied throughout the US? Further, the issue of age is irrelevant to the issue of incest. States allow for varying degrees of age, which are held quite separate from degrees of family relation. Anyone can agree that those under 17 should not be getting married, and yet disagree that once over that age 1st cousins cannot. The use of age was also intermingled with issues of homosexuality in the past. I am sad to see you using the same arguments people have used against homosexuality, against other sexual minorities. They were and are equally wrong. It is all a scare tactic. All this said, if you are going to reply let's cut incest out. I'd be happy to address it in another thread but it just makes everything more messy by bringing even more side issues. Let's stick with straight, mixed race, polygamous, and gay marriage. They are all we really need to look at for this discussion. I was not happy that you casually dismissed my car analogy and then substituted your own. Yours was not a good analogy at all, and other than an assertion it was better I could not see valid reason given as to why it was. If anything, while making yours, you should have started catching on to the difference between mixed-race marriage and same sex marriage. Using a car analogy, at this point in time cars of different colors would be accurate for mixed-race marriage. In contrast, creating a vehicle whose "wheels" use treads rather than rubber tires is like same sex marriage, with respect to the legal definition of what a car is or car license covers. Up till now the definition of marriage has been one man and one woman (and in some local areas more than one partner). If you do not agree with this statement, then there is simply no hope in trying to communicate, as this is pretty established fact. Asking for laws to be changed so that it is two individuals, is asking for a change. It is as simple as that, just as asking for your tread design vehicle count as a car is asking for a change. It is so small so why not? And I agree to hang on to an impractical definition for no reason except to continue a tradition is ludicrous. But that doesn't mean that's not what's happening, or that it has precedent, and that Lawrence does not stop that precedent from continuing... It was equally ludicrous for the SC to ignore the Constitutional Amendment specifically regarding what happens if an election is not complete by swearing in time, in order to focus on the tradition of that swearing in date and so hand Bush the presidency. But it did happen. Am I supposed to say they didn't do what they did based on the argument they gave, just because I think it was wrong? One does not coddle an enemy by understanding exactly what they are saying and admitting it has some amount of logical cogency. Our own may have more cogency, and more consistency, maybe even more facts, but pretending that means they are all washed up and are not even saying what they are saying is coddling your own vanity. That does not help the debate. It only antagonizes them into a position where no solution is possible. On a side note, if conservatives were able to agree that gays can have unions with the same legal rights as straights, but it could not be called marriage and laws must state that it is something different, would you be willing to accept that compromise? Also, I was unaware vermont's unions were not fully rights inclusive. Whether they carry over to other states is not so important as that is true of many state laws, but that full rights married people enjoy get enjoyed by gays in that state does seem important. From what I heard Dean has not castigated gay marriage. I have heard other candidates support unions but not marriage, but I really remember him saying in an interview that he was not against gays getting married at all. I could be wrong, and if you have a handy link to something to the contrary I'd appreciate it. I'm still not sure which Dem I'd prefer, although I know plenty I'd never vote for. ------------------holmes [This message has been edited by holmes, 12-29-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
