If you are o.k. with the law being drawn to exclude same-sex marriages, why is the line being drawn to exclude anyone not white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant suddenly irrational?
Back to the court case:
It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non–Discrimination Act four years ago (L.2002, ch. 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.
The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.
1. "Marriage is for procreation and child rearing!"
With 7 billion people on Earth, I hardly feel that it's a strong imperative to birth as many more as possible -- adopting and rearing those already here who lack good homes would seem a greater priority. With research indicating that infertile and same-sex couples can rear children as effectively as fertile hetero couples, it seems that, logically, we should be encouraging gays to marry and adopt, rather than banning it. The real child-rearing issues are single parents (whom research has conclusively demonstrated are, in general, not as effective in child-rearing). Therefore, gay marriage should logically be no issue, but single parents should be outlawed, and as CourtFool alludes, divorce would have to be looked at very closely.
Yes. By which logic mixed-gender marriages and women voting should also be illegal.It is not a matter of where I choose to draw the line, it is a matter where the culture has drawn the line.So we are back to tradition?
Yes-- and let's not forget women owning property, black people being free, hell, men getting haircuts. We all know MANY instances where, just because society has drawn a line doesn't mean it's right, or even set in stone; in fact, later generations have redrawn it, based on an awareness that the 1st line was no longer in the best interests of that society -- as Pres Man has pointed out in the argument in the court case, set by the Loving marriage. My hope (and belief) is that one day, we will do the same, here.
Back to the court case:
** spoiler omitted **
You've linked that case about six times now, as more or less your sole backing, which I guess brings up the question of this: does one specific legal opinion override all other issues? If so, Roe v. Wade should be trumpeted as the "ultimate" argument in favor of legal abortion, and all of the pro-life people should bow down to its incandescent glory. But that's not how life works. One legal opinion does not dictate the perfect, proper, divinely-mandated order of the universe.
|
If you are o.k. with the law being drawn to exclude same-sex marriages, why is the line being drawn to exclude anyone not white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant suddenly irrational?Back to the court case:
** spoiler omitted **
And if they'd ruled differently, you'd be howling about "disgraceful activist judges legislating from the bench", just like opponents of gay marriage did when the California courts ruled against them.
And if they'd ruled differently, you'd be howling about "disgraceful activist judges legislating from the bench", just like opponents of gay marriage did when the California courts ruled against them.If you are o.k. with the law being drawn to exclude same-sex marriages, why is the line being drawn to exclude anyone not white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant suddenly irrational?Back to the court case:
** spoiler omitted **
Thanks for demonstrating your ability to read minds Paul, LoL. Still I see nothing wrong with a judiciary that actually claims to have some limitations. It is not the judiciary's role to make laws, or at least that is what I was naively told in school.
You've used that case as more or less your sole backing, which I guess brings up the question of this: does one specific legal opinion override all other issues? If so, Roe v. Wade should be trumpeted as the "ultimate" argument in favor of legal abortion, and all of the pro-life people should bow down to its incandescent glory. But that's not how life works. One legal opinion does not dictate the perfect, proper, divinely-mandated order of the universe.Back to the court case:
** spoiler omitted **
The only reason I use this document, is because I want to make it clear that not all the arguments I am making are necessarily my own. And I am lazy and I've looked over this one a bit so I know about what is in there. Not being a legal scholar, I don't really have the time to look through multiple different cases. Also this one dealt with New York in particular and (I know it was a long time ago) this thread was started with a discussion of that state.
And if they'd ruled differently, you'd be howling about "disgraceful activist judges legislating from the bench", just like opponents of gay marriage did when the California courts ruled against them.
Agreed.
Plaintiffs argue that the category is underinclusive because, as we recognized above, same-sex couples, as well as opposite-sex couples, may have children. That is indeed a reason why the Legislature might rationally choose to extend marriage or its benefits to same-sex couples
So, we all agree? Gay marriage should be legal?
|
|
And if they'd ruled differently, you'd be howling about "disgraceful activist judges legislating from the bench", just like opponents of gay marriage did when the California courts ruled against them.Agreed.
The really funny thing about that is the California ruling was exactly what pres man was asking for. It did not make a new law, it reaffirmed the Constitution, which the law breached. So it was a decidedly conservative judicial view, but because they didn't like the result, conservatives howled activism when there was none.
Equally funny is the fact that the UK, which is a Christian country with an established Church as part of the government (granted it's an incredibly tiny part but it's still there), has less problems with this issue than the US where such a relationship between state and church is forbidden.
Well one issue is the slippery-slope argument. Basically any argument made to justify same-sex couples can also be made to justify multi-spousal marriages as well. In that case the argument to limit it to just one and one is just as silly as the argument to limit to just one man and one woman. As stated by many people in support of same-sex marriage [but clearly not all], this not a problem in their eyes. And many people who claim to worry about the "sanctity of marriage" do not view multiple-spouse marriages as something desirable.
One thing I think you are forgetting is that same-sex attraction is biologically driven. That is, homosexuality is a fact of biology, not a choice. This is not true (as far as I am aware) of multiple-partner attraction - which I understand to be purely a function of choice (whether religiously or culturally motivated).
Denying someone a set of rights and privileges based on their DNA is a very different thing than denying them those rights and privileges based on the choices they want to make.
There is no slippery slope here.
Well one issue is the slippery-slope argument. Basically any argument made to justify same-sex couples can also be made to justify multi-spousal marriages as well. In that case the argument to limit it to just one and one is just as silly as the argument to limit to just one man and one woman. As stated by many people in support of same-sex marriage [but clearly not all], this not a problem in their eyes. And many people who claim to worry about the "sanctity of marriage" do not view multiple-spouse marriages as something desirable.
One thing I think you are forgetting is that same-sex attraction is biologically driven. That is, homosexuality is a fact of biology, not a choice. This is not true (as far as I am aware) of multiple-partner attraction - which I understand to be purely a function of choice (whether religiously or culturally motivated).
Denying someone a set of rights and privileges based on their DNA is a very different thing than denying them those rights and privileges based on the choices they want to make.
There is no slippery slope here.
Well put.
Unfortunately, not all opponents of gay marriage accept that argument regarding biology -- which is just silly. Ask any straight person, "...so, when you were 12, and the hormones started to kick in, what made you decide to be attracted to the opposite sex?"
But, of course, because THEY were natually drawn to the other gender, they assume (as any egocentric human would) that all other people are, too, and anyone drawn in another direction MUST be acting against nature.
I am a Latinist. I'm looking at my Vulgate, Corinthians 1 6:9. I have the linguistic skills, but not really the cultural and historical knowledge to put it all in context or comment on connotations. But, translating as literally as I can:
Do you (plural) not know because the wicked (ones, men) will not possess the kingdom of God (?) Do not be mistaken.
Not fornicators
Not those serving idols
Not adulterersNot effeminate (ones) [this is one is interesting. The word is 'molles' a substantive from the adjective meaning tender, soft, or effeminate, which in some translations is rendered as male whores. KJV simply renders as effeminate (men)]
Not those who lie with men [it is 'concubitores masculorum,' which means bedmates of men]
will possess the kingdom of God.
I started reading this thread out of boredom while SoFaWTL hit a slow spot. I must be a masochist. Anywho....
******
I agree with your linguistic interpretation. The problem is that words change and get lost in translation over the years and people of the present (which is most of us) do not have a full comprehension of the ways of their societal / cultural relativism from a socio-anthropomorphic point of view.
As someone said earlier in this thread, the traditional purpose of marriage was a societal contract when women were considered property (chattel) of the male. The abomination referenced in Exodus and Romans did not had to do with men having sex with each other; the abomination was being defined as men taking the role of the chattel / property; hence the feminine descriptor. Men wasn't supposed to be the property of other men (aside from slavery). Otherwise, whether in war or peace, it was not uncommon practice for those of the same sex to consumate with each other.
David and Jonathan. Their love for each other was greater than that of a love for a woman. They weren't having a bromance, folks. ;-)
*******
You know what I find ironic? We're squabbling about who does or does not have the right to enter a contractual relationship or consumate their love for each other, but we have no problems playing a game where it's alright to kill and pillage. I'd rather my kids see Adam Lambert stir up the controversy on national television than to be packing some heat at school when his classmate tells him that his uber character he made for their campaign was made of epic fail.
/soapbox
Thanks, Urizen for that post -- and I agree.
From the bit of study I've done of such things, including word usage, etc., is that the abominations listed here and in the verses describing the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah, seem all do to with non-consensual sex (children, slaves/property, rape, etc.) -- the issue is with the roles, not the genders of the participants.
From the bit of study I've done of such things, including word usage, etc., is that the abominations listed here and in the verses describing the crimes of Sodom and Gomorrah, seem all do to with non-consensual sex (children, slaves/property, rape, etc.) -- the issue is with the roles, not the genders of the participants.
You are correct.
Sodom and Gomorrah was snuffed out not because they were having sex with the same gender. The angels of God already knew that. The reason the cities got snuffed because they were disrespectful with their hospitality when they themselves arrived.
Lot spared. He offered his daughters. They also committed incest.
But Lot was hospitable. He wasn't a saint; he had flaws. But hospitality goes a long way, folks. Including this debate.
And if anyone cares to follow the lineage, key figures within the bible narrative would not exist in context this day if it weren't for Lot.
But thanks to translators through agendas or errors, sodomy now has become a definition for "unnatural" sex. If we were to have used that word for what its true definition could have been, it should have meant being disrepectful.
And in that context, keep the sodomy laws in the books and start prosecuting those disrespectful folks. Spend more time doing that than trying to legislate what we do in the bedroom or relax and have some munchies.
With that note, I shall retire to my chambers. No disrespect intended. ;-)
But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.
Again, tradition.
A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted.
Nor should it. But simply because that is the way we have always done something is not a good enough reason to not examine it. In fact, tradition should be challenged. If it holds up to scrutiny, so be it. If its only reason for existence is its own existence, it should be struck down with prejudice.
I am looking at you constitutional monarchies.
Seems I am not alone.
Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.
Seems I am not alone.
Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.
bolded; my emphasis.
<parody>
[1610 A.D.]
<Galileo> The earth revolves around the sun.
[1615 A.D.]
<Paul V> Nuh uh. Galileo bad! Augustine pwns you!
[1632 A.D.]
<Galileo> No, really... heliocentric.
[1633 A.D.]
<Urban VIII> Nuh uh. Heretic! Blasphemer! You better expect the Spanish Inquisition. They'll pwn you!
[1642 A.D.]
<Galileo> Merde...
[1939 A.D.]
<Pius XII> Ya know, G-Money might've been onto something.
<Red shirt monk> Yo chief, Hitler's on line three!
<Pius XII> I'll have to ponder on this later. Adolphie! I need a new art piece for my sanctum. Or did you give it to that rascal Max?
[1990 A.D.]
<John Paul II> Ehhhhh...Paul and Urban ... they really weren't speaking ex cathedra. They were joshin', ya know. Either that or Friar Mullally gave them the good meade. Who could really expect them to make a pronouncement of such magnitude to not be impervious to the passage of time? Not guilty by reason of inebriation, your honor!
<Cardinal Ratzinger> Jawohl!
</parody>
Oops, did I invoke Godwin? Bueller?
Seems I am not alone.
Our responsibility, however, is to protect constitutional rights of individuals from legislative enactments that have denied those rights, even when the rights have not yet been broadly accepted, were at one time unimagined, or challenge a deeply ingrained practice or law viewed to be impervious to the passage of time.
bolded; my emphasis.
** spoiler omitted **
** spoiler omitted **
So what your saying is in about 300 years gays can expect an apology from christens about the whole not being able to marry thing.
The moral, don't trust the man…especially if he has a roman numeral after his name.
So what your saying is in about 300 years gays can expect an apology from christens about the whole not being able to marry thing.
Yes.
One thing I think you are forgetting is that same-sex attraction is biologically driven. That is, homosexuality is a fact of biology, not a choice. This is not true (as far as I am aware) of multiple-partner attraction - which I understand to be purely a function of choice (whether religiously or culturally motivated).Denying someone a set of rights and privileges based on their DNA is a very different thing than denying them those rights and privileges based on the choices they want to make.
There is no slippery slope here.
Although it has little to do with the argument at hand, (and for the record, I have no problem with same sex marriage) I do find it odd that someone would argue that being attracted to multiple members of the opposite sex for heterosexuals is a matter of choice as opposed to biology.
By this reasoning I guess that the married men who are subsribers to publications like playboy, watch pornography etc are not motivated by biology, but by simple choice. Likewise those less lecherous folks who are in a committed relationship and see an attractive member of the opposite sex walk by and find them attractive.
I would agree there is an element of choice in how one handles that attraction, I just think that the attraction is there none the less, and that that instictive attraction is just that: instinctive.
(I figure this happens to homosexuals as well, but obviously with members of the same sex, with just as much control over how they handle that attraction if they are in a committed relationship.)
By this reasoning I guess that the married men who are subsribers to publications like playboy, watch pornography etc are not motivated by biology, but by simple choice. Likewise those less lecherous folks who are in a committed relationship and see an attractive member of the opposite sex walk by and find them attractive.
Interesting turn in the conversation! I have to quote Andrew Vachss here: "Behavior is the truth." Think about that for a second. It doesn't matter if I secretly want to murder my annoying co-worker, because I personally won't really do it. Likewise, even if biology makes me admire that good-looking gal, my finding her attractive does NOT mean that I'm going to have an affair with her, even if the opportunity presents itself.
So! The argument is often made by those against gay marriage that "homosexuality is not a choice, but homosexual behavior is." Which is true as far as it goes, but denies the fact that the same is true of heterosexuality and associated behavior. We as a society have no problem attaching legal penalties to adultery, and no problem granting legal benefits to married couples... so it all boils down to a question of what's considered acceptable.
And THAT'S what's under deliberation, really. Pres Man seems to feel strongly that homosexuality should not be considered acceptable, whereas others of us don't have a problem with it. Personally, I feel the best policy is to err on the side of allowing anything that isn't demonstratively harmful. Others use a totally different meter stick, saying that anything not entrenched in tradition is automatically unacceptable. Until we can agree on a rubric, there's no common ground.
Interesting turn in the conversation! I have to quote Andrew Vachss here: "Behavior is the truth." Think about that for a second. It doesn't matter if I secretly want to murder my annoying co-worker, because I personally won't really do it. Likewise, even if biology makes me admire that good-looking gal, my finding her attractive does NOT mean that I'm going to have an affair with her, even if the opportunity presents itself.
So! The argument is often made by those against gay marriage that "homosexuality is not a choice, but homosexual behavior is." Which is true as far as it goes, but denies the fact that the same is true of heterosexuality and associated behavior. We as a society have no problem attaching legal penalties to adultery, and no problem granting legal benefits to married couples... so it all boils down to a question of what's considered acceptable.
And THAT'S what's under deliberation, really. Pres Man seems to feel strongly that homosexuality should not be considered acceptable, whereas others of us don't have a problem with it. Personally, I feel the best policy is to err on the side of allowing anything that isn't demonstratively harmful. Others use a totally different meter stick, saying that anything not entrenched in tradition is automatically unacceptable. Until we can agree on a rubric, there's no common ground.
Very true. And the issue then becomes, we still be biologically driven animals, but animals with a higher level of cognitive functioning, and therefore extended control over those biological urges, which ones, as a society, are we going to require us to sublimate. Which ones can we completely sublimate?
The question of the person in a committed relationship forsaking others is easier if their biological needs are being met by the other partner. More men have affairs whose partners will not or can not meet their sexual needs. But even so, many of those men whose needs are not being met still don't cheat. However, many of them will leave the relationship in search of the need to have their sexual needs met. But a percentage of them will stay and be unhappy. Can we reasonably subject a whole subsector of humankind to the requirement to sublimate their sexual needs?
(On an interesting side note, there is some biological connection to the "7 year itch" in that the theory is that by the time a child was 6 or 7 in a preindustrial society, they were less dependant on the requirement of two parents to care for them, and thus men's biology adapted to then seek to propogate further with additional mates.)
By this reasoning I guess that the married men who are subsribers to publications like playboy, watch pornography etc are not motivated by biology, but by simple choice. Likewise those less lecherous folks who are in a committed relationship and see an attractive member of the opposite sex walk by and find them attractive.Interesting turn in the conversation! I have to quote Andrew Vachss here: "Behavior is the truth." Think about that for a second. It doesn't matter if I secretly want to murder my annoying co-worker, because I personally won't really do it. Likewise, even if biology makes me admire that good-looking gal, my finding her attractive does NOT mean that I'm going to have an affair with her, even if the opportunity presents itself.
So! The argument is often made by those against gay marriage that "homosexuality is not a choice, but homosexual behavior is." Which is true as far as it goes, but denies the fact that the same is true of heterosexuality and associated behavior. We as a society have no problem attaching legal penalties to adultery, and no problem granting legal benefits to married couples... so it all boils down to a question of what's considered acceptable.
And THAT'S what's under deliberation, really. Pres Man seems to feel strongly that homosexuality should not be considered acceptable, whereas others of us don't have a problem with it. Personally, I feel the best policy is to err on the side of allowing anything that isn't demonstratively harmful. Others use a totally different meter stick, saying that anything not entrenched in tradition is automatically unacceptable. Until we can agree on a rubric, there's no common ground.
...
NEXT STOP, Homo sapiens. Social conservatives like to point out what they see as threats to "family values." But they don't have the slightest idea how great that real threat is, or where it comes from. Monogamy is definitely under siege, not by government, declining morals, or some vast homosexual conspiracy -- but by our own evolutionary biology. Infants have their infancy. And adults? Adultery.
To begin with, we probably never occupied an Edenic paradise of one-to-one fidelity. The evidence is as follows: First, men are significantly larger than females, a pattern consistently found among polygynous species. From deer to seals to primates, the harem-keeping sex is the larger one, because competition among harem keepers rewards those who are larger and brawnier. Second, around the world, men are more violent than women (see Evidence No. 1; it avails little in acquiring a large number of mates for a male to be physically intimidating unless he is also inclined to make use of his assets). Third, girls become sexually mature earlier than do boys -- another tell-tale sign of polygyny, because the intense competition among harem keepers conveys an evolutionary payoff for the "keeping" sex to delay maturation until individuals are large, strong, and possibly canny enough to have some chance of success. And fourth, before the cultural homogenization that came with Western colonialism, more than three-quarters of all human societies were polygynous.
...
Kirth, I would appreciate it if you could restrain yourself from projecting thoughts onto me. I have never once indicated that I thought "that homosexuality should not be considered acceptable". This is the problem with discussions like this. Instead of trying to understand each other, people try to villify the other person. Let's try to avoid this and make the discussion about the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
|
By this reasoning I guess that the married men who are subsribers to publications like playboy, watch pornography etc are not motivated by biology, but by simple choice. Likewise those less lecherous folks who are in a committed relationship and see an attractive member of the opposite sex walk by and find them attractive.Interesting turn in the conversation! I have to quote Andrew Vachss here: "Behavior is the truth." Think about that for a second. It doesn't matter if I secretly want to murder my annoying co-worker, because I personally won't really do it. Likewise, even if biology makes me admire that good-looking gal, my finding her attractive does NOT mean that I'm going to have an affair with her, even if the opportunity presents itself.
So! The argument is often made by those against gay marriage that "homosexuality is not a choice, but homosexual behavior is." Which is true as far as it goes, but denies the fact that the same is true of heterosexuality and associated behavior. We as a society have no problem attaching legal penalties to adultery, and no problem granting legal benefits to married couples... so it all boils down to a question of what's considered acceptable.
And THAT'S what's under deliberation, really. Pres Man seems to feel strongly that homosexuality should not be considered acceptable, whereas others of us don't have a problem with it. Personally, I feel the best policy is to err on the side of allowing anything that isn't demonstratively harmful. Others use a totally different meter stick, saying that anything not entrenched in tradition is automatically unacceptable. Until we can agree on a rubric, there's no common ground.
I will point out that with no fault divorce penalties for adultery is part of the issue. Giving anyone an easy out to soemthing that has been for years "sacred" to a large portion of our society and a "lifetime" commitment is a problem.
I was also say, as a point on the other thread about "truth" something may not at this time be "demonstratively harmful, but it does nto mean it will always be so, or that it is not harmful now.
Please take those statements as they were meant not as a statement for or against same sex marriage.
It can be taken as a statement against divorce. Having been divorced however.......
No.So what your saying is in about 300 years gays can expect an apology from christens about the whole not being able to marry thing.Yes.
Both CJ and CF are correct (in a sense). I was just drawing attention in bold to the court case CF excerpted.
A lot of people still seem to be egocentric as much as folks were geocentric back in the day. If we can come around to heliocentrism, then hopefully this topic can move forward in its intended (?) course.
Then again, there are still flat earthers out there...
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Very true. And the issue then becomes, we still be biologically driven animals, but animals with a higher level of cognitive functioning, and therefore extended control over those biological urges, which ones, as a society, are we going to require us to sublimate. Which ones can we completely sublimate?
The question of the person in a committed relationship forsaking others is easier if their biological needs are being met by the other partner. More men have affairs whose partners will not or can not meet their sexual needs. But even so, many of those men whose needs are not being met still don't cheat. However, many of them will leave the relationship in search of the need to have their sexual needs met. But a percentage of them will stay and be unhappy. Can we reasonably subject a whole subsector of humankind to the requirement to sublimate their sexual needs?
Ack. I should know better than to post in another one of these threads, but...
I agree with the above, which is why I have a very strong preference for the legislature, rather than the judiciary, to be the one to decide the matter. As a society, we do require people to sublimate their biological urges. Granting a legal right based upon a person's biological predisposition through the courts risks a very slippery legal slope. I know it's distasteful to say, but if a person has a legal right stemming from their sexual attraction to people of the same gender, that implies that a person having a sexual attraction to children has a legal right. This puts the courts in the situation of having to determine which sexual preferences result in rights and what those rights should be. That's a tough question for courts to answer, and one for which they are relatively ill-suited (particularly when the rights require some affirmative action on the part of the legislature/executive branch as opposed to refraining from taking an action).
Now, that being said, I think there is a fundamental human right to engage in your sexual preference of choice (provided it doesn't harm others, of course) and that the protection of this right may require courts to protect certain ancillary rights. So, if the only way to protect the right to engage in homosexual sex is to allow homosexuals the right to marry, I'd reluctantly support that. However, I think this sort of penumbra-rights based reasoning is on tenuous legal grounds and creates a real danger of courts stepping too far outside their appointed role in our government. Such decisions cause a significant portion of people to question the legitimacy of the courts and, given how difficult it is to overturn court decisions, results in them attacking and undermining the courts and the government in order to have their voices heard. We're very close to having a legislative path to these rights, so resort to a judicial path strikes me as causing more damage to the governmental institutions than the justice it provides.
But, then again, I don't have a dog in the justice fight, so it's pretty easy for me to say "just wait a little longer, we're almost there."
Removed an offensive post.
Kirth, I would appreciate it if you could restrain yourself from projecting thoughts onto me. I have never once indicated that I thought "that homosexuality should not be considered acceptable". This is the problem with discussions like this. Instead of trying to understand each other, people try to villify the other person. Let's try to avoid this and make the discussion about the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
You'll note I was very careful to say "seems to feel," not "feels." Your posts -- which are all I know of you, of course -- are consistently anti-gay, regardless of your personal feelings. (One should also note that, to a person who does not "consider homosexuality to be acceptable," acknowledgement of that fact would be taken as affirmation, rather than vilification as you imply.)
But, yes, by all means, back to the issues, and please forgive the lapse -- my goal was to provide an up-thread reference for other points of view for newcomers.
I will point out that with no fault divorce penalties for adultery is part of the issue. Giving anyone an easy out to soemthing that has been for years "sacred" to a large portion of our society and a "lifetime" commitment is a problem.
I agree. A society works, in part, by creating incentives for people to keep their word, and disincentives for breaking it (elementary game theory will show this). Doing the opposite damages one of the cornerstones of what allows us to cooperate as a group, so it's demonstratively harmful, and hence contra-indicated by my personal rubric.
|
My vote is to eliminate the word "marriage" altogether from legal bindings between two people. Instead, all current legal "marriages", hetero or otherwise, are converted into civil unions with the exact same rights as they had before. Then, everyone can get a civil union, and if you want to get married in a church, you can do so. If a church doesn't want to marry you, then you've still got your civil union. Everyone's treated equally, churches get a monopoly on marriage with no government interference, and homosexual couples get the rights they deserve.
Problem solved!
Interesting twists to the biology argument :)
I had a feeling that the attraction to multiple partners wording would get me into trouble of exactly this sort.... Fortunately - the discussion has already covered what I might have responded with, so I'll leave this one.... (unless something new/other comes up).
I didn't foresee the argument about attraction to children though - that was a bit of a kick in the metaphysical nuts :)
I know it's distasteful to say, but if a person has a legal right stemming from their sexual attraction to people of the same gender, that implies that a person having a sexual attraction to children has a legal right. This puts the courts in the situation of having to determine which sexual preferences result in rights and what those rights should be. That's a tough question for courts to answer, and one for which they are relatively ill-suited (particularly when the rights require some affirmative action on the part of the legislature/executive branch as opposed to refraining from taking an action).
Whether or not this implies that they could have a legal right, the issue with children is different (and much easier for a court or legislature to deal with), for at least the one important reason that children don't have the same legal rights of consent that adults do. So an adult-child marriage would face an entirely different legal obstacle than a homosexual marriage.
I'd be perfectly happy for consent to override claims derived from biology, and certainly if gay marriage were legal, it would still require the consent of both parties (nobody has argued differently, that I am aware of).
My vote is to eliminate the word "marriage" altogether from legal bindings between two people. Instead, all current legal "marriages", hetero or otherwise, are converted into civil unions with the exact same rights as they had before. Then, everyone can get a civil union, and if you want to get married in a church, you can do so. If a church doesn't want to marry you, then you've still got your civil union. Everyone's treated equally, churches get a monopoly on marriage with no government interference, and homosexual couples get the rights they deserve.
Problem solved!
Alas, we've been over that ground before. Most of the people on the boards here seem fine with what you propose. Most states that introduce anti-gay-marriage legislation, however, ALSO include anti-gay-civil-unions language. And a lot of people remember how "separate but equal" was used as political doublespeak for "not equal at all."
|
|
I fully respect your choice as your own.For churches that do perform gay marriages, should the state ignore those, while upholding those from different (but, in my view, equally valid) religious traditions?
If the state has any say in it at all, why should separation of church and state favor some church members over others?
In my view, "middle ground" and "equal" aren't exactly the same - is there any basis, other than religious (including religious tradition) to enforce a legal inequality?
if you noticed I deleted my post to avoid any further possible flames.
The state should not recognize any marriage. A civil union should be all it recognizes. If you get married at a church it shoudl also give you a civil union. Or you can just get a civil union at the court house.
Whether or not this implies that they could have a legal right, the issue with children is different (and much easier for a court or legislature to deal with), for at least the one important reason that children don't have the same legal rights of consent that adults do. So an adult-child marriage would face an entirely different legal obstacle than a homosexual marriage.
I don't really see how adult-child marriage would even work. I mean besides the issue of the child not being able to give consent. A child will always grow into an adult, assuming it lives of course, thus these relationships are inherently unstable.
I think the bigger issues for those adults with those preferences is artwork. If a video uses a digital image, and no child was actually harmed? If a video uses realistic computer generatored images? Hentai?
if you noticed I deleted my post to avoid any further possible flames.
The state should not recognize any marriage. A civil union should be all it recognizes. If you get married at a church it shoudl also give you a civil union. Or you can just get a civil union at the court house.
sorry - I wondered where it went! I must have been already replying while you were deleting...
do you want me to delete the post with the quoted text? (edit: deleted it anyway...)
edit: FWIW, I actually agree with this - the state should be out of the marriage business.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Whether or not this implies that they could have a legal right, the issue with children is different (and much easier for a court or legislature to deal with), for at least the one important reason that children don't have the same legal rights of consent that adults do. So an adult-child marriage would face an entirely different legal obstacle than a homosexual marriage.
Yes, there would be the consent issue, but now you couldn't arbitrarily draw a line and say "18 is the age of consent" and enforce that. You would need to balance whatever interest the state has in protecting children (particularly those sexually capable and below the age 18) against the interests of those adults who are sexually interested in children.
Consent isn't the answer, it's a new question that is opened up because the person's sexual preference gives them a right to practice that preference. If you're going to limit that right, you will need to justify those limitations to a far greater extent than if there was no right.
There's also the question of what would happen if the right to marry were granted by the courts. I think the model a lot of people are operating off of is the african american civil rights movement. In that instance, the court did recognize rights, demanded affirmative action from the other branches of government, and, so the story goes, popular opinion followed. That is one way it could play out, but it could also play out like abortion. The court could recognize a right, demand affirmative action from the other branches of government, and create a dedicated and passionate opposition group that tries to push back on that right every step of the way.
Plus, once biology is the basis for the right, resources will be reallocated in an attempt to prove that the right is psychological and not biological in nature. You will see other claims of rights based on spurious biological claims. The fight for rights won't go away, it will just move into a new non-democratic forum, where it will be fueled by impotent range and frustration.
I guess part of me wonders whether there would be a trade off between having the right sooner and having the right stand the test of time.
Just to make it clear, my point is not against gay marriage, it is against the judiciary as the means to that end. The judiciary is a dangerous non-democratic institution - not just because of what it can do, but also because of what happens if it starts to be ignored. It has no power to enforce its decisions, and it's only by the cooperation of the other branches that it can do its job. Everytime it tries to move faster than them, there is a risk that they don't listen and that it can no longer perform its necessary functions. It has happened before in our history and it could easily happen again.
Whether or not this implies that they could have a legal right, the issue with children is different (and much easier for a court or legislature to deal with), for at least the one important reason that children don't have the same legal rights of consent that adults do. So an adult-child marriage would face an entirely different legal obstacle than a homosexual marriage.Yes, there would be the consent issue, but now you couldn't arbitrarily draw a line and say "18 is the age of consent" and enforce that. You would need to balance whatever interest the state has in protecting children (particularly those sexually capable and below the age of consent) against the interests of those adults who are sexually interested in children.
Consent isn't the answer, it's a new question that is opened up because the person's sexual preference gives them a right to practice that preference. If you're going to limit that right, you will need to justify those limitations to a far greater extent than if there was no right.
Plus, once biology is the basis for the right, resources will be reallocated in an attempt to prove that the right is psychological and not biological in nature. You will see other claims of rights based on spurious biological claims. The fight for rights won't go away, it will just move into a new non-democratic forum, where it will be fueled by impotent range and frustration.
There's also the question of what would happen if the right to marry were granted by the courts. I think the model a lot of people are operating off of is the african american civil rights movement. In that instance, the court did recognize rights, demanded affirmative action from the other branches of government, and, so the story goes, popular opinion followed. That is one way it could play out, but it could also play out like abortion. The court could recognize a right, demand affirmative action from the other branches of government, and create a dedicated and passionate opposition group that tries to push back on that right every step of the way.
I guess part of me wonders whether there would be a trade off between having the right sooner and having the right stand the test of time.
I understand where you're coming from - and agree that consent doesn't answer the issue, it is just a balancing factor. To go a bit further, age of consent does differ wildly (not too wildly, but enough) - so that an adult legally married to a 16 year old in one jurisdiction might be a pedophile in another. In other words, it is already arbitrary, to at least some degree.
edit: just found this: Marriage Consent by State
see the contrast between Oregon, New Hampshire, and New York, for example
I'm not trying to argue that biology should be the sole basis for any particular right, just that it should not be ignored. My point was meant to speak more to the (wrongheaded, in my) view that homosexuality is a choice.
For your final point, I understand what you mean, but I do believe that rights must always be fought for if they are to stand the test of time - they can be taken away as easily as they can be granted. So I'm all for "sooner" - the requirement for vigilance is perpetual.
|
|
...
Whether or not this implies that they could have a legal right, the issue with children is different (and much easier for a court or legislature to deal with), for at least the one important reason that children don't have the same legal rights of consent that adults do. So an adult-child marriage would face an entirely different legal obstacle than a homosexual marriage.Yes, there would be the consent issue, but now you couldn't arbitrarily draw a line and say "18 is the age of consent" and enforce that. You would need to balance whatever interest the state has in protecting children (particularly those sexually capable and below the age of consent) against the interests of those adults who are sexually interested in children.
Consent isn't the answer, it's a new question that is opened up because the person's sexual preference gives them a right to practice that preference. If you're going to limit that right, you will need to justify those limitations to a far greater extent than if there was no right.
Plus, once biology is the basis for the right, resources will be reallocated in an attempt to prove that the right is psychological and not biological in nature. You will see other claims of rights based on spurious biological claims. The fight for rights won't go away, it will just move into a new non-democratic forum, where it will be fueled by impotent range and frustration.
There's also the question of what would happen if the right to marry were granted by the courts. I think the model a lot of people are operating off of is the african american civil rights movement. In that instance, the court did recognize rights, demanded affirmative action from the other branches of government, and, so the story goes, popular opinion followed. That is one way it could play out, but it could also play out like abortion. The court could recognize a right, demand affirmative action from the other branches of government, and create a dedicated and
That site is a couple of years out of date. Kansas changed its laws when a Nebraska Teen and her 19 boyfriend came here and got married with her estranged fathers permission. The Groom was arrested because under Nebraska law he had sex with a minor. They had consent laws when you are within 3 years. She was 14.
That site is a couple of years out of date. Kansas changed its laws when a Nebraska Teen and her 19 boyfriend came here and got married with her estranged fathers permission. The Groom was arrested because under Nebraska law he had sex with a minor. They had consent laws when you are within 3 years. She was 14.
Well, so my point was made a couple of years ago :)
Just for the record - I'm not arguing for sex (or marriage) with minors, just pointing out that the age of consent is somewhat arbitrary (and variable). The legal system has had to define it for some time now by balancing the interests of those involved.
My vote is to eliminate the word "marriage" altogether from legal bindings between two people. Instead, all current legal "marriages", hetero or otherwise, are converted into civil unions with the exact same rights as they had before. Then, everyone can get a civil union, and if you want to get married in a church, you can do so. If a church doesn't want to marry you, then you've still got your civil union. Everyone's treated equally, churches get a monopoly on marriage with no government interference, and homosexual couples get the rights they deserve.
Problem solved!
I can understand your argument however I would like to point out the 1500 rule. as a gay man myself I am very much aware of this rule it is the 1500 diffrences in federal & state laws that apply to "marriages" that would NOT apply to civil unions. Thats why I do everything I can to support marriage equality.
My other argument for supporting marriage rights is this. I am an american citizen that has served in the armed forces and have never broken any laws(15 speeding tickets dont count)and I am a pagan. Because of tradition,religion or whatever else reason I no longer have the rights as every other american especilly the right of "pursuit of happiness" and I find that wrong so I try to work within the system to change it. History shows us that seperate but equal never is.
I would like to say to EVERYONE on the boards that this has been a great read and to all the straight/hetro supporters out there "THANK YOU!" your courage and support is very much appreciated.
Because of tradition,religion or whatever else reason I no longer have the rights as every other american especilly the right of "pursuit of happiness" and I find that wrong so I try to work within the system to change it. History shows us that seperate but equal never is.
If you think you have it bad, consider your poor polyamorous pagan fellows. At least you can go to some states and get some state benefits with your relationship, they can't even do that. Who is helping them? And who is telling them to be patient, that their time will come eventually?