Gay Marriage

Kara wrote:

....The "threat" to marriage is non-existent. Heteros lose nothing if gays gain the right to marriage. And gays gain the right to form lasting and stable relationships with all legal rights that pertain to marriage, which situation ought to appeal to conservatives and traditionalists......

Not quite so; have we come to the 'crux' (to use a quasi biblical term) of this issue?

what is potentially to be lost by the hetero/holy lobby is the ussual thing that drives (bottom line) most debates - money.

is it the finacial security, and 'rights' of marriage that is actually frigtening those who would horde the 'sanctity of marriage' for themselves?

not sure about the U.S., but in Canada, there are many benefites connected to being legaly 'bound'.

And my respect for those who participate in such traditional functions for this reason, is at the same level as serial polluters.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
No offense, but I love the loaded language you use. Again, when it is a group with whom you disagree, running for office, being heard, voting as they see fit... these are nefarious acts to be feared.

scrat

Denying women the vote, or keeping blacks to the back of the bus, were nefarious policies merely in the minds of those who disagreed with those policies?

Typical of you to go there, but we weren't discussing those, were we?

Is it your contention that everything with which you disagree can be equated to supporting racial or gender discrimination? If so, I'd love to see you support that position. If not, stop trying to make that linkage, and discuss what is being discussed.

If you can only view those you disagree with on this as bigots, you have merely given yourself permission to not think about any point of view but your own.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

The problem with the Christian Right being so organized is that I DO disagree with them on most things.

That's YOUR problem with the so-called Christian Right, not THE problem. Seems to me (and I could be wrong here) that you have a "problem" with anyone with whom you disagree being organized enough to counter those with whom you do agree. I have never seen you express concern over the efforts of women's groups to get specific candidates elected or see specific policies enacted, nor do I recall your ever claiming we should be concerned about the agenda of gay rights groups, environmental groups, anti-gun groups, etc..

Your point of view smacks of fascism; you would decide which groups "deserve" to be heard and which should be silenced. Thank God we still have some freedom of speech in this country, as inconvenient as that fact is to so many on the far left and far right.

0 Replies

I was skimming back and just noticed a snippet I had overlooked and wanted to address... (bold mine)

blatham wrote:

The entire purpose of those groups seeking such legislation (where it doesn't exist) or seeking to strengthen such legislation (where it is already in place) is to deny equal rights to people they don't like, people who they do not believe deserve equality (as women didn't deserve the vote, and as blacks didn't deserve equal membership in society).

No, that is the only purpose you either see or care to address. I don't believe for a second it is the sole purpose shared by every person who wishes to keep marriage defined as a union of a single man and a single woman.

There are people whose purpose is to follow their religion as they understand it; to them this is no different than supporting a civil law against murder because their religion teaches them "thou shalt not kill". There are people who believe further acceptance of alternative unions and thereby a growth in the number of alternative lifestyle households will place more children in such households, and believe that to be counter to the best interests of children. Their purpose is to protect children. Etc....

Whether you or I agree with these goals does not mean they do not exist as goals; purposes as you write. It is true that the effect of these people getting their way would be to deny certain people certain rights, but I don't think I need to show that the effect of one's actions and one's purpose can be (often are) very different things. You shove everyone who is against same-gender marriage into one convenient box, labelled in such a way that nothing within need be given any consideration. That makes your argument easy, but leaves it uncompelling and of little value to the actual debate being had over this issue.

You toss around this notion of "denying people their rights" as if that were always a terrible thing and something to be universally decried by decent people of conscience. While there are certainly lots of cases where that is true, is it always and universally so? Children have certain rights, but not all the rights of adults. We deny children certain rights. The reason this is so is that at some point we as a society determined that it was best for society if children lacked the right to drink, to smoke, to drive cars, to marry, etc.. This is not done to harm children, but is done with the goal of achieving the most stable and free society for the maximum number of individuals. Denying children these rights ultimately benefits far more children than it harms.

Am I arguing that denying homosexuals the right to marry is the best thing for homosexuals? No, of course not. In fact, I believe denying them this right harms them, and I believe it harms society as well. I am even willing to accept that giving them this right might have some bad consequences for society, because I believe in individual liberty. The thing is, there are those who disagree with me who believe they see reasons why denying homosexuals the right to marry benefits society more than allowing them to marry would. Of course, there are bigots and pinheads who don't think homosexuals deserve any rights at all, but pretending that they are your only adversaries in this debate won't win the debate for you. It will only bar you from understanding the position of the rest of the people out there who disagree with you.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Walter - Yes, it seems I stumbled upon a source that had it wrong, and so got it wrong myself. Fair enough. Now, was there a reason for your incivility in pointing this out, or do you not need a reason to be rude?

Sorry, if my response sounded rude.

But since you wrote:

Quote:

ehBeth - Your quote didn't stirke me as something Einstein would have said (or written).

and

Quote:

Lot's of people on the Internet seem to have this one wrong. (So what's new, right?)

I was just wondering.

0 Replies

Walter - If you're going to insult people in an open forum, at least have the balls to be honest about it.

0 Replies

Hmm.

At first, you said, I was rude.
I apologized, if this sounded like that.

Now, you say, I was insulting people.
Sorry again, but no offence was intended.

(re. 'open forum': it's me, who is here with my real name :wink: )

0 Replies

Huh?

0 Replies

Not many posting their objections yet to gay marriage, are there?

The bigotry that dare not speak its name.

Bill Maher submitted the postulate last night on his extraordinarily topical show that it is the Democrats that stand most hypocritically against gay marriage, due not only to the obvious lack of any intellectually consistent rationale, but to their divining their stance on the basis of public opinion polls.

John Kerry, in particular, comes in for specific criticism IMO because his state of residence is at the forefront of the revolutionary social changes as well as his rather nebulous objection to gay marriage ("I'm for civil unions; I'm not in favor of gay marriage").

I agree with Bill Maher.

Such polls, incidentally, suggest that nearly two-thirds of Americans are opposed to gay marriage (the percentages against actually began moving upward as the likelihood of gay marriage increased in recent months), so it is again refreshing to read the opinions of A2Kers, particularly you conservatives, and know that we are, together, thinking outside the mainstream.

And about this constitutional amendment being suggested, I have a thought.

Since so many of our elected officials think it is the government's job to protect and defend the institution of marriage, I propose that they consider including others in their amendment, in order to keep even more undesirables from poisoning marriage's purity and sanctity....

Therefore, and strictly following the conventional wisdom (what an oxymoron), the following groups of people should likewise be denied the right to marry:

1. Alcoholics
2. Adulterers
3. People who have been divorced
4. Illegal drug users
5. The unemployed
6. Convicted felons
7. Those with certain debilitating mental conditions such as bi-polar disorder and carrying on from there all the way to the various palsies, schizophrenia, dementia, and insanity

After all, marriage to someone who falls under any of the above conditions is very much more likely to fail, and that would be bad for 'marriage'.

Perhaps atheists and agnostics should also be denied the right to marry, as it is "sacred".

I am sure I have left out some categories, but I think this is a good start to a list that can help our brave politicians come up with a more comprehensive protection of the institution of marriage.

Plus, then they can't be accused of gay-bashing, because they will be taking away Constitutional rights from many other people as well.

What do you think? Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

Yes, it does smack of Nazi dogma, doesn't it. Let's control the purity of the race now -- Andrew Sullivan really lashed out at the bigots last night on Maher.

0 Replies

Other to be denied based on public opinion:

Lawyers
Car Salesmen
Enron executives

Need I go on?

0 Replies

Well, it's not really only a Nazi dogma - when you have a look here

Eugenics Archive

you just can wonder ... Sad

0 Replies

Quote:

(re. 'open forum': it's me, who is here with my real name )

Walter,

0 Replies

Quote:

is it the finacial security, and 'rights' of marriage that is actually frigtening those who would horde the 'sanctity of marriage' for themselves?

not sure about the U.S., but in Canada, there are many benefites connected to being legaly 'bound'.

BoWoGo, I will forgive your misspellings :wink: and get to your point. Yes, there are federal benefits to married people paying taxes, and the issue of Social Security for a married spouse is an important issue for gays. These benefits were intended to strengthen marriage, and even if gays married in accord with a state's statutes, they would not get benefits as married people under federal law. That is why I think this issue will go all the way to the Supreme Court. Equal protection will be the rallying cry.

An interesting issue to me will be the status of married gays in Massachusetts if one spouse's company is a branch of a nationwide firm that does not offer health benefits, for example, to gay partners while doing so to married couples. They will be married in Massachusetts but will probably not be offered "married" benefits from a national firm that has a branch in MA but is based in, say, Texas.

0 Replies

As most of you know, San Francisco has sanctioned several hundred gay weddings this weekend.

In a symbolic gesture, many gay couples across the United States showed up at their local courthouses as part of Marriage Equality Week.

They were -- expectedly -- turned away at various locations across Texas, reminded that it is illegal in the state for homosexuals to wed.

This is the ugly side of the mood they encountered outside the Harris County courthouse, in Houston:

Quote:

A few feet away, about seven men and women protested the demonstration, with some shouting insults.

"I've got two dogs that want to get married," yelled one man. "Can you get a marriage license for dogs?"

"Gay? Got AIDS Yet?" read a sign carried by a man who would not give his name.

"Freedom of speech doesn't require identification," he said.

A man identifying himself as "Captain Bijou" explained why several of the anti-gay demonstrators were wearing protective masks: "We're in an AIDS zone."

He said he was there because of his religious beliefs and his desire to "save our country from all that's happening ... all the indecencies our country is accepting."

Aubrey Vaughan, pastor of Grace Baptist Church, carried a sign that said "Sodomites Destroy the Family" and was passing out several pages titled "What Does the Bible Teach about Homosexuality?"

Thankfully, it wasn't all as bad as this. You can read the entire story here.

0 Replies

All the antigay demonstrators were missing was as a burning cross and the white sheets.

0 Replies

PD

Lovely post. And you are right, there have been few defenders of legislation prohibiting gay marriage. We ought to acknowledge a certain bravery on Scrat's part.

And, Maher and yourself hold the same notion as myself regarding the dems, including Kerry. We all know why this is the strategy - it's likely a losing proposition (they know the polls better than us) and would play right into Rove's hand. But they ARE inconsistent, and it is, at least temporarily, shameful.

Scrat

Quote:

There are people whose purpose is to follow their religion as they understand it;

Yes, I know. And that's fine, other than where oppression of others results.

Quote:

to them this is no different than supporting a civil law against murder because their religion teaches them "thou shalt not kill".

Correct. What is identical ("no difference") here is the following of a proscription from an authority. What is DIFFERENT is everything else. Arguments from authority are understood as a form of logical fallacy for a good reason...one ends up with things like the conflation of murder and homosexual marriage.

Quote:

There are people who believe further acceptance of alternative unions and thereby a growth in the number of alternative lifestyle households will place more children in such households, and believe that to be counter to the best interests of children. Their purpose is to protect children. Etc....

Such arguments were advanced to protect the children in mixed race marriages. No amount of socioligical evidence would have sufficed, thirty years ago, to change the minds of dedicated racists, fixed ideas being of the nature they are. And that's another problem with allowing authority to do one's thinking for one...truth or facts (or even documents like the Bill of Rights) are trumped by something else. What has to be shown is that allowing gay marriages factually results in damage to children (that's PD's point of who else ought not to be allowed to marry, if that were the real reason. It's also my point about one fairly significant difference between murder and homosexual marriage). Someone's belief doesn't make the grade, Taliban belief, crop circle belief, any belief.

Quote:

You shove everyone who is against same-gender marriage into one convenient box, labelled in such a way that nothing within need be given any consideration. That makes your argument easy, but leaves it uncompelling and of little value to the actual debate being had over this issue.

So far, the ONLY rationale you have offered up for the curtailment of rights is that some people believe according to what their faith instructs them, or that some people believe damage will occur (and how many of them believe damage will occur because they've been told it will?) Now, THAT'S easy. Don't have to think at all. And I didn't say all 'sit in one convenient box', I said the preponderance of. Would you seriously argue that?

Quote:

Denying children these rights ultimately benefits far more children than it harms.

Here you make a justification for limiting peoples' rights (mature, informed, consenting adults) by analogizing them with children. That analogy allows you justification to choose everyone's food too. And bed time.

Quote:

The thing is, there are those who disagree with me who believe they see reasons why denying homosexuals the right to marry benefits society more than allowing them to marry would.

This is in red, because it is the thread's question....please please show me some argument or some evidence NOT FOUNDED IN RELIGIOUS BELIEF for denying these people equal status and rights.

0 Replies

I've rarely seen such forthright dishonesty as Scrat's remark. Unless i read that wrong, and it was a feeble attempt at ironic humor, Scart accuses Walter of being insulting. I've never seen, in this, or in any other thread, the least wiff of insult in anything Walter wrote.

Walter, for whatever it may be worth, i consider you to be just about the most courteous and civil individual i've met on-line.

0 Replies

Quote:

What is DIFFERENT is everything else. Arguments from authority are understood as a form of logical fallacy for a good reason...one ends up with things like the conflation of murder and homosexual marriage.

Blatham, help me out here. What do these "things" mean?

0 Replies

Quote:

Walter, for whatever it may be worth, i consider you to be just about the most courteous and civil individual i've met on-line.

Setanta, thank you for saying that.

And not only is Walter civil but he is articulate, not an easy task in a second language. Also, he is intelligent and thoughtful. We are lucky to have him here.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know