|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage
|
Sine Nomine*
Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
[Perhaps the government should just quit recognizing marriage of any sort altogether.]
If by marriage, you mean a sacrament of the (a) church, why shouldn't they? What business is it of theirs?
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Hear hear. We are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francis' Little Helper
Shipmate
# 4903
|
Posted
When I was a lass in the graduate department of the University of Arizona (Anthropology) all of us lowly Teaching Assistants had to sign a loyalty oath to the effect that we would defend the country and the state. I thought it strange and envisioned a line of TA's at the Mexican border defending the sovereign territory of Arizona.
When I became a priest, I found it strange that for all the talk of the separation of church and state--I should be considered an agent of the state in the realm of signing marriage licenses! Separation indeed! With one stroke of the pen, I can make families, tax breaks, and all sorts of other legal benefits.
The MA Supreme Court has claimed jurisdiction over the definition of marriage--as well they should. I am an agent of the state when I sign a marriage license, ergo--at some level they also have jurisdiction over me.
This could all go away quite nicely if this quirk were to be removed at the national level. Make marriage civil across the board for everyone; and then let the churches decide how to administer the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
It would be a heck of a lot easier than putting in a constitutional amendment!
--------------------
It's a mess. But it's OUR mess! (A concise summary of Anglicanism.)
Posts: 59 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
Hear, hear. I had to do one of those loyalty oaths once too, and I am sure the state of Arizona feels much safer as a result of it.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Out of curiosity: how many of those who support homosexuals being granted the status given to married people think the same rights should be extended to polygamists?
If you don't - presuming those involved in polygamy are consenting - why don't you?
Affirm civil unions between gay people.
Do not affirm civil unions between polygamists.
Reason: Legally too difficult and too expensive to administer. Super, pensions etc are set up to have 1 beneficiary. Income support (welfare payments) too difficult to administer and may result in inequity.
[Irrelevant reason because this is a civil matter: belief that polygamy is adultery for reasons stated on the Polygamy thread]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
(And it really doesn't require my analogy to show how crappily reasoned that statement of yours was.)
I disagree. If the divorce rate is around 50%, it's not because marriage is under attack from homos and lezzies.
Correct, perhaps, but totally irrelevant. And it assumes that the reason people oppose homosexual marriage is that allowing homosexual marriage constitutes an attack on heterosexual marriages. Red herring.
The 2 major reasons I've seen for opposing gay civil unions are that they are an attack on the institution of marriage and they promote the 'normalisation' of homosexuality.
Campaign for California Families certainly seems to oppose it on the basis that it attacks or erodes heterosexual marriage:
quote:
From their form lobby letter:
The state should strengthen and protect marriage between a man and a woman, not weaken or eliminate the distinction of this sacred institution.
quote:
From their list of candidates who promise to protect heterosexual marriage:
To attack marriage between a man and a woman is to attack the very foundation of family and society.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Hello
<remembers to stick carefully to the OP>
I think that it is within the interests of society to promote long term stable relationships. Apart from anything else, you need less houses if people split up less.
I would also suggest it is in the interests of society to promote long term monogomous relationships given that these generally are more adventageous for the growth of children.
These two statements can be proved from relevant statistics IMO. Now, that is as far as the state's responsibility goes. As the state is for everyone, not just the Christians, it has absolutely no right to enforce beliefs on people who do not hold them. Furthermore, it should never prevent other types of relationships (other than where it can be demonstrated that they are physically or psychologically dangerous, and I appreciate that there is room for debate about what that means). But it certainly should encourage patterns of behaviour that are to the benefit of society, like tax on petrol.
Now, that said, it is not the responsibility of the state to make a moral decision about who should marry whom. If two people, understanding the commitment they are making, wish to be officially joined then the state cannot do anything but recognise it. The responsibility for moral leadership lies with the religious community not the state.
I hope that makes sense, I was trying not to let my own sexual ethics get in the way.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nonpropheteer
6 Syllable Master
# 5053
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
All I'm interested in are legal protections under the law. Having a shower ... isn't important, as far as I'm concerned.
Sine, we've been trying to find a sensitive way to tell you this, but there isn't one: You should take a shower at least a couple times a week - and you don't need legal protection to do it.
Posts: 2086 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Affirm civil unions between gay people.
Do not affirm civil unions between polygamists.
Reason: Legally too difficult and too expensive to administer. Super, pensions etc are set up to have 1 beneficiary. Income support (welfare payments) too difficult to administer and may result in inequity.
Not convincing. Plenty of other things we do in society are expensive: trials-by-jury, for instance. Pensions could be split more than one way; it might take modifying a database, but that's hardly an insurmountable barrier. As for income inequity, obviously people shouldn't enter into a polygamous marriage if they can't afford it--just like people shouldn't enter into a monogamous marriage if they can't afford it.
And as you mentioned the "morality" reason is irrelevant to the matter of polygamous unions in civil society.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
It appears that we are evolving, or maybe regressing, toward a legalization of the word marraige to a strictly secular definition. Perhaps, in this semantic game, the Church, as Little helper said, should consider what words it could use in place of the word marraige to retain its religious context.
As the eminanant semanticist, H. Dumpty said,"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." To which the literalist Ms A replied, " The qquestion is whether you can make words mean so many different things." And the pragmatic rejoinder, "The question is which to is be naster - that's all."
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Francis' Little Helper
Shipmate
# 4903
|
Posted
Well, I do think that the legal ramifications of marriage should be separated from religious ramifications. No clergy should be put in the position of having to sign a state document, and frequently I find myself counseling couples "if it's just that nice piece of paper you want, then that nice JP down the street can help you out".
--------------------
It's a mess. But it's OUR mess! (A concise summary of Anglicanism.)
Posts: 59 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I really do not see why we (in Canada, at any rate) do not emulate the European approach of a state ceremony or registration down at city hall, and then a religious ceremony for those whose beliefs and practices (or desire for a nice and aesthetic event in an old building) require it.
Civil society could then attend to its legitimate registration requirements and provide a dignified setting for those without any religious beliefs. Churches could then focus on their pastoral priorities and exercise whatever marriage discipline they feel appropriate (viz. divorces, appropriate gender mix of spouses, annulments, etc). Jurisdictions which wish to ban polygamy (such as Utah), could continue to do so-- other jurisdictions which might wish to embrace polyness (perhaps Wales??) would be free to make such arrangements as they wished. And in Canada, because marriage is shared jurisdiction, we could have provincial/ federal ministerial conferences and protocols for years to come, providing gainful employment for bureaucrats.
Such an arrangement could only pose problems for wedding photographers, who would be deprived of their 5-minute registration-signing opportunity.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by The Coot:
Affirm civil unions between gay people.
Do not affirm civil unions between polygamists.
Reason: Legally too difficult and too expensive to administer. Super, pensions etc are set up to have 1 beneficiary. Income support (welfare payments) too difficult to administer and may result in inequity.
Not convincing. Plenty of other things we do in society are expensive: trials-by-jury, for instance. Pensions could be split more than one way; it might take modifying a database, but that's hardly an insurmountable barrier. As for income inequity, obviously people shouldn't enter into a polygamous marriage if they can't afford it--just like people shouldn't enter into a monogamous marriage if they can't afford it.
And as you mentioned the "morality" reason is irrelevant to the matter of polygamous unions in civil society.
What you say about only people who can afford it should do it, is not relevant to my society. We can't legally sanction such a civil union and say 'But you have to fund yourself, if you get sick or disabled or unemployed you won't have the same rights as other Australians'. We have a social security system and everyone must have equal access to it.
Regarding the inequity. And this is more relevant in places like Oz and the UK which have a comprehensive Social Security safety net compared to the US - take for example, unemployment payments: at present one member of the couple claims and they each receive the half married rate. The whole married rate is not simply 2x the single rate; but is calculated on what it costs a couple to live (ie. it is cheaper for 2 ppl to live than one). For a group marriage - what would be the appropriate rate for all the non-working partners? A simple half married rate to all members of the marriage would disadvantage couples - is it cheaper for 4 people to live than 2? Too hard to work out - and anyway, is it fair that with one partner registered for unemployment payments the rest aren't required to look for work? Then if not, is it fair that all the other partners should have to look for work when the the single partner of a person doesn't have to?
It's a bureaucratic nightmare, and given that we have scarcity in society ie. everything is a compromise 'cos there is not enough of the pie to hand around - something like trial by jury is high on the list of priorities - while reorganising the structure of our minimum wage, social security payments, super/pensions should be low on the list as there is no precedent of making allowances for this type of household unit and no history in the abovementioned countries of this type of unit existing (since colonisation/invasion whatever).
It's going to be a lot more than changing a database. The judicial system would get overloaded with appeals and contested wills. Which next of kin will the body be released to, who makes Do Not Resuscitate type decisions in a hospital?
The social security net concerns me the most, because it is a fragile thing - push it too much or exploit it and it will break and be no good to anyone.
(Yes, I included the bit about morality, because I suspected JL was interested to know what the position of the ppl that answered was)
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Polygamy is used to muddy the waters by some who are against gay marriage. Let the polygamists fight their own fight without riding the coattails of homosexuals.
I agree with Francis' Little Helper: quote:
Make marriage civil across the board for everyone and then let the churches decide how to administer the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Marriage has to be the same for both heterosexuals and homosexuals because there is no such thing as separate but equal as some U.S. democratic presedential canidates are trying to suggest, i.e., civil unions.
"Love and marriage, Love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage...." ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[Edited for quote UBB.]
[ 14. February 2004, 16:25: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I don't want the government deciding that burning incense in Church is a health hazard and banning it. I don't want my employer to be able to fire me for refusing to work on Holy Friday. I don't want some latter-day prohibitionist deciding that Orthodox Christian infants shouldn't be allowed to receive the Eucharist. I don't want my children being taught, in public school, that they should "Just Say No" to alcohol, no matter what, with no mention being made of wine taken as part of religious ceremonies.
Sounds like you need to move to England - none of those things goes on here.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Marriage has to be the same for both heterosexuals and homosexuals because there is no such thing as separate but equal as some U.S. democratic presedential canidates are trying to suggest, i.e., civil unions.
No, not at all.
Marriage is marriage and if the government apsses a law changing it then so what? They could pass a law declaring the sky pink, but it wouldn't be. There was marriage before ever there were nation states to pass laws about it (or before there were a Christian churches) and I expect that there still will be after there are no nation states any more.
But the government can and should pass laws that allow equal protection under the law to people whoever they think they are married to.
Render unto Caesar & all that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Polygamy is used to muddy the waters by some who are against gay marriage. Let the polygamists fight their own fight without riding the coattails of homosexuals.
They've been fighting their own fight a hell of a lot longer; they just haven't had as much success. But it is an indisputable fact that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. If that's to change, then why are you putting arbitrary limits on how much it can change?
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Kyralessa said:
quote:
But it is an indisputable fact that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. If that's to change, then why are you putting arbitrary limits on how much it can change.
I don't think I am putting arbitrary limits to how much it can change. It is not arbitrary that marriage traditionally has been for people who have a heterosexual orientation and it is not arbitrary that it should now include people with a homosexual orientation.
It boils down to comparable equality, not quantity.
--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Kyralessa said:
quote:
But it is an indisputable fact that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. If that's to change, then why are you putting arbitrary limits on how much it can change.
I don't think I am putting arbitrary limits to how much it can change. It is not arbitrary that marriage traditionally has been for people who have a heterosexual orientation and it is not arbitrary that it should now include people with a homosexual orientation.
It boils down to comparable equality, not quantity.
But every homosexual person in America already has the right to marry.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
La Sal
quote:
It boils down to comparable equality, not quantity.
That makes no sense. You're saying discrimination is at work in keeping Gay people from being able to marry. Why isn't it discrimination that somebody can't marry more than one person if they choose?
[ 14. February 2004, 17:30: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Kyralessa: ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Alt Wally,
Maybe it is discrimination for some who cannot marry more than one person or their dog or dogs if they choose, but it is not for me to care about at this time... the argument is a red herring when it comes to equality for homosexual couples who want to marry.
--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
It's not a red herring because your argumant is based on equitable rights. Sorry, but if you're going to argue equality you have to look at all of its implications.
You also haven't explained how extending the right of marriage beyond it's current definition isn't just creating another arbitrary marker.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by La Sal:
Kyralessa:
Sorry, that doesn't tell me a whole lot. Would it pain you greatly to be more specific? To make it easier for you, I'll be clear on what I mean:
What would be legalized here is not marriage between homosexuals, but marriage between people of the same sex; there is no reasonably objective standard by which the law can determine whether or not someone is homosexually-oriented. So legalizing homosexual marriage does not allow homosexuals to do something heterosexuals have always done; rather it allows everyone to do something that no one has ever been able to do: Marry someone of the same sex.
I will presume (you may correct me if I'm wrong) that the way you look at it is that what heterosexuals have been able to do up till now, and homosexuals haven't, and what you consider everyone's right to do, is marry the one with whom they're in love. Which is fine, but then explain to me, please, by what logic you would deny polygamists the same legal right.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
A couple of points here, LFD.
First, what you believe the scriptures teach isn't necessarily what the scriptures teach.
An entirely redundant comment on your part, Josephine, given that my original post contained the string "...I believe...". If you wish to try and rebut this position from Scripture ("tradition" can take a running jump, I'm not bound by denominational intertia) please crack on.
quote:
Second, if the church has it right and the state has it wrong, why do you think that will make a dime's worth of difference in what the church does?
Because state legislation is invading the operational sphere of churches, with threats of fines etc. where a church is operating in line with revealed truth, it becomes a critical matter. Case in point - the Gender Recognition bill that is about to be foisted on the UK, where churches will be compelled to treat biological males as females, despite this flying in the face of God clearly has "...created them male and female...".
Please spare me a redundant comment on this latter point.
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Saint Osmund
Pontifex sariburiensis
# 2343
|
Posted
I'm 100% in favour of such a move.
However, I think that we have marriage completely wrong anyway. This may seem tangential, but is relevant to the thread, as will be explained in what follows it.
[Dead Horses tangent]
Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church. It is a bond between a Christian man and a Christian woman, uniting in a unique way the two created and complimentary manifestations of the human race, in a lifelong union within Christ's Church. It is a pointer to the fullness of the union between Christ and humanity at the end of time (begun at Baptism), and affirms the mutual love of the couple. It is also the natural grounding for the procreation of children.
[/Dead Horses tangent]
That said, there are many other forms of relationships that are different, but are equally valid and equally worthy of recognition and affirmation under the law. The law already recognises some of them, such as the union of those heterosexual couples who wish to share their lives and love, but would not wish to do so in the context mentioned above. The problem lies in the fact that the law also calls this 'marriage'.
There is no reason why homosexual couples in the same situation should not also receive the same benefits under the law. We just need to make the distinction between what is commnly called 'marriage' and 'Holy Matrimony', the former being a civil ceremony and the latter being a Sacrament of the Church.
Churches that wish to bless forms of relationship other than Marriage may do so, but this is a separate matter for them to debate.
If my tangent was inappropriately placed, then I apologise, but I felt that my position on that was necessary to a proper understanding of the later views that I expressed.
Please, nobody call me homophobic, or I shall be forced to laugh.
M x
[cursed paranthesis!]
[ 14. February 2004, 19:36: Message edited by: Saint Osmund ]
Posts: 2965 | From: here | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Kyralessa,
You are correct in stating that there is no standard by which we can determine if a married couple is straight or gay, be it in an opposite sex couple or a same sex couple but regardless, I believe that keeping the definition of marriage monogamic is closer to the traditional definition than is polygamy.
Therefore that is how I would deny polygamists the same legal right.
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Alt Wally said:
quote:
Sorry, but if you're going to argue equality you have to look at all its implications.
Explain, what implications?
--------------------
Formerly Molly Brown
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
In fact polygamy has been the subject of human rights challenges, as it is of importance to various ethnic communities.
Polygamy in the UK
It's downside is that it can lead to an attitude that if your current wife isn't delivering the goods (babies, sexual satisfaction etc.) then go get another one. So you could be Devil's advocate and say that in its bad points, it's not that much worse than western serial monogamy where people ditch their partners for new ones but still have legal obligations to the discarded spouse. You could even argue that instead of divorcing your partner, merely taking on another one and still having very serious obligations to the first partner could be a better system.
However the problem with polygamy as I understand it, is that in many societies it's linked to low status for women. The rules about it in the Koran (to take one example) are very strict and quite idealistic but what happens in practice is another thing.
You can end up with young women being pushed into a form of marriage where they're meant to count themselves lucky for being allowed a time-share on one bloke whilst the blokes can have several wives waiting upon them, and pick another one any time they fancy someone else more than those they've got already. In the US it has been linked with a pattern of abuse.
So I'd be very wary of it, unless people could show me research to the contrary. (Although I've also seen women who defend it and claim it's a good arrangement for them - I'd be interested to look at any research people had to post on it, as to how it affects women in practice)
On the other hand I see no such potential problem with gay or lesbian marriage. I don't see that leading to the oppression of anybody, although it does seem to have this strange side-effect of leading to a sudden concern amongst conservative christians about polygamists rights. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
However the problem with polygamy as I understand it, is that in many societies it's linked to low status for women.
So, in many societies, is monogamy, for which reason I have trouble seeing this as a valid objection.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
Louise, you've just said everything I wanted to but far, far better. Given all the rumours flying around other threads, can I apply to be your less intelligent sock puppet please?
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Sounds like you need to move to England - none of those things goes on here.
Presumably because you have laws that prevent them, as we do here. Which doesn't mean they don't ever come up -- wasn't it in Ireland that there was a government investigation into the health effects of incense in Church? And here, we have drug education programs that don't bother mentioning that the religious use of alcohol is different from the recreational -- they tell kids not to use alcohol, ever, and then parents are left to explain the exceptions.
In any event, my point was that if I don't want to be discriminated against, I must do what I can to ensure that others are not discriminated against either. Do you not see the simple logic in that?
quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
Case in point - the Gender Recognition bill that is about to be foisted on the UK, where churches will be compelled to treat biological males as females, despite this flying in the face of God clearly has "...created them male and female...".
Can you explain this to me, LFD? I've not heard of it before. What would it affect? If a man applied to join a women's monastery in the UK, would the women's monastery be obliged by law to admit him?
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
However the problem with polygamy as I understand it, is that in many societies it's linked to low status for women.
So, in many societies, is monogamy, for which reason I have trouble seeing this as a valid objection.
Post your research then, showing how the two compare. My understanding from reading human rights research and looking at societies which practice polygamy is that women on the whole fare worse where polygamy is the norm. I've given several links above. Where is your support for polygamy being no better or worse than monogamy?
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Louise, once again ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
The "women have a lower status in polygamous relations" argument - as well as generalising massively - fails to explain why consenting men and women should not be allowed to engage in polygamy, other than because "tradition" (hah!) and narrow-minded dogmas says they can't. Once you abandon the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and turn it into a question of consent, the reasoning being used to defend the institution of formalised same-sex coupling cannot - without inconsistency of thought - be denied to those groups (e.g. Mormon splinter groups) advocating polygamy/polyandry.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Post your research then, showing how the two compare. My understanding from reading human rights research and looking at societies which practice polygamy is that women on the whole fare worse where polygamy is the norm. I've given several links above. Where is your support for polygamy being no better or worse than monogamy?
I read your links, Louise. The first two give no indication of horror or abuse other than that the first wife didn't want the husband to take a second; not a good thing, but a far cry from abuse.
As for the third, on Utah, a few points:
(1) These things go on in monogamous marriages too...but we don't call them characteristic of it because we approve of monogamy.
(2) Because of polygamy's illicit status, obviously we don't hear in the media about perfectly happy polygamous marriages.
(3) Since polygamy is illicit, a woman who reports the abuse will disrupt the entire family, and this may well cause her to think twice about reporting; ergo it is polygamy's illicit status that fosters the continuation of abuse, where a woman in a monogamous relationship would not be similarly constrained.
(4) I've already pointed all this out on the Polygamy thread (which appears to have drifted out of sight), so why are you repeating your points here when they've already been answered?
As for this:
quote:
On the other hand I see no such potential problem with gay or lesbian marriage. I don't see that leading to the oppression of anybody, although it does seem to have this strange side-effect of leading to a sudden concern amongst conservative christians about polygamists rights.
It may be distasteful, but sometimes extreme measures are necessary in order to expose liberal hypocrisy.
(I will admit that sycophant-wise you have me beat, though. )
[(5) What JL said.]
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
But every homosexual person in America already has the right to marry.
And the right to have that marriage dissolved when the marriage doesn't work.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
They've been fighting their own fight a hell of a lot longer; they just haven't had as much success. But it is an indisputable fact that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. If that's to change, then why are you putting arbitrary limits on how much it can change?
Actually, it is not true that marriage has traditionally been defined as between one man and one woman. In certain times and places, yes--but not all.
How many wives did King David have? I think it was more than one, wasn't it.
Who was limited to one wife in the Epistles? I think it was only deacons and bishops. The fact that it needed to be said implied there was some polygamy going on.
How many wives may a man following Islam have? It causes a problem in Africa when a polygamist converts.
It is necessary to state the time, place, and culture when you start to say one man-one woman marriage.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
I'm curious about what people think about what the mayor of San Francisco has done: more or less ignore state law and have the city do gay marriages. I think they did over 400 yesterday.
Even if one supports gay marriage, what do you think about how the mayor has gone about it?
(And I don't intend to rant here. My view is so predictable, I don't plan to spell it out. I am genuinely curious about what you all think, especially those who support gay marriage.)
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
Can you explain this to me, LFD? I've not heard of it before. What would it affect? If a man applied to join a women's monastery in the UK, would the women's monastery be obliged by law to admit him?
I'll PM you some details. I don't want to be accused of derailing a thread.
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Kyralessa said:
quote:
(I will admit that sycophant-wise you have me beat, though. )
I resemble that remark....
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Osmund:
[Dead Horses tangent]
Marriage is a Sacrament of the Church. It is a bond between a Christian man and a Christian woman, uniting in a unique way the two created and complimentary manifestations of the human race, in a lifelong union within Christ's Church. It is a pointer to the fullness of the union between Christ and humanity at the end of time (begun at Baptism), and affirms the mutual love of the couple. It is also the natural grounding for the procreation of children.
[/Dead Horses tangent]
....
There is no reason why homosexual couples in the same situation should not also receive the same benefits under the law. We just need to make the distinction between what is commnly called 'marriage' and 'Holy Matrimony', the former being a civil ceremony and the latter being a Sacrament of the Church.
Churches that wish to bless forms of relationship other than Marriage may do so, but this is a separate matter for them to debate.
If my tangent was inappropriately placed, then I apologise, but I felt that my position on that was necessary to a proper understanding of the later views that I expressed.
Please, nobody call me homophobic, or I shall be forced to laugh.
M x
[cursed paranthesis!]
I'm extremely un-homophobic and I entirely agree with all of this and have said it elsewhere. I don't see that you have to allow polygamy if you allow gay civil unions, however. I don't understand why states don't just do civil unions for everyone, and allow the Churches to say who's married to those to whom it matters. If my own Church starts to say that gay relationships are the same (as far as the Church is concerned) as relations between a man and a woman, I'll be deeply concerned, and desire to get involved in the ensuing battle; but if the state grants civil unions to couples of any sort who are capable of consenting to it, then I'm not terribly upset.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
La Sal
quote:
Explain, what implications?
JL pretty much outlined them above. The important point is that if the law is altered, a precedent is set and the same arguments will be used again.
Mark
quote:
I'm curious about what people think about what the mayor of San Francisco has done:
It will be interesting to see what this does. I think it is going to ratchet up the temperature of the debate in an election year. I can pretty much guarantee you this will evolve to be a wedge issue.
Laura
quote:
I don't see that you have to allow polygamy if you allow gay civil unions, however. I don't understand why states don't just do civil unions for everyone, and allow the Churches to say who's married to those to whom it matters.
I can only speak for myself, but I haven't heard a single person or any report in the media talk about the government getting out of the marriage business as an option. Not once, from either side. What I have heard from the stories in MA and CA is that civil unions are considered to be insufficient by the people lobbying for same sex marriages.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I can only speak for myself, but I haven't heard a single person or any report in the media talk about the government getting out of the marriage business as an option. Not once, from either side. What I have heard from the stories in MA and CA is that civil unions are considered to be insufficient by the people lobbying for same sex marriages.
Nor have I heard anyone in the media or in the government (or desiring to be in the government) say the government should get out of the marriage business and only register civil unions. I think that such a move isn't likely any time soon.
And perhaps the move shouldn't be made soon. But I think we should start talking about it now, because I think it's the right thing to do, and I believe that, here in the US anyway, we'll get around to it eventually.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
fails to explain why consenting men and women should not be allowed to engage in polygamy,
I'm quite happy to say that they can if I can get satisfactory answers to my questions, is it something likely to be very abusive and harmful? Is it going to be discriminatory? If you can show me it isn't, then yes I'd say there might be a case for legalising it.
I'm not convinced at all though, by what Kyralessa posts - but I shall take that up on the other thread. From what I can see polygamy leads to much higher levels of abuse and poverty for women and children than are seen in predominantly monogamous societies and those are things I'd want to know more about. I don't think it tends towards greater equality but to greater inequality.
On the matter of gay marriage though, I'm perfectly satisifed that all it is doing is giving validation and protection to relationships which ought to be validated and protected - and that abuse and inequality is not being built into those relationships. In the case of polygamy I don't think I can say the same thing yet.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
La Sal
Shipmate
# 4195
|
Posted
Jesuitical Lad said:
quote:
Once you abandon the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and turn it into a question of consent....
I don't think the question is one of consent but rather one of sexual orientation which is not a choice as is the choice of monagomy or polygamy.
IOW sexual orientation, presumably, is not a choice whether hetero or homo, it is a condition and so same sex marriage can be defended however, polygamy cannot.
Does this make sense? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posts: 175 | From: sonoran desert | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Louise
quote:
is it something likely to be very abusive and harmful?
How many things can you think of that are likely to be abusive or harmful that are legal?
Regardless, in the case of polygamy I think the government said in essence it has a compelling interest in controlling the institution of marriage. I think in large part it is why they say the first amendment doens't apply in this case. It's interesting to note that in the 1870's when reviewing Reynolds vs. United States the supreme court put the following in it's opinion as to why polygamy should be outlawed:
quote:
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.
Strange that I near nobody decrying this ruling who sees this as an issue of equality. The problem according to the court was that in large part it was not practiced among nice Europeans, but savages and thus the practice is odious.
La Sal
quote:
I don't think the question is one of consent but rather one of sexual orientation which is not a choice
I think at best that is a highly contentious assumption. Many polygamists claim the practice is a religious obligation. Contentious as well.
[ 15. February 2004, 01:13: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MarkthePunk:
I'm curious about what people think about what the mayor of San Francisco has done: more or less ignore state law and have the city do gay marriages.
Purely political, on several levels.
Massachusetts was about to steal the thunder of the self-styled gay capital of the world. Of course, I've been in Boston, and I think San Franciscans sometimes think too highly of themselves on these issues.
It was a way to show support for the pro-marriage state legislators in Boston. In a way, they could see they weren't alone, so it would stregnthen their backbone.
Civil disobedience can have its uses to make a point. Rosa Parks made that point on a bus one day. So, now the California courts will have to deal with the issue and not side-step it. I don't know what provisions are in the CA constitution, so I'm not sure how the arguments will procede. (Of course, the equal protection clauses in the US constitution might have some bearing here, but would be a long-shot today. Maybe.)
As long as those taking part in the same-sex marriages in San Francisco realize that to participate in civil disobience also means to participate in the penalities and can backfire on your cause, then "party on, dudes."
Incidently, as a person that has a stake in this argument, my thoughts are that we are not seeing gay couples trying to act like het couples. Instead, over the past 40-50 years, het couples are acting more and more like gay couples. So, if het couples get benefits and responsibilities under the law, why shouldn't gay couples?
Like it or not, case law as well as statutes are defining gay relationships under the law in the US. Examples:
- Olympia's Valentine session deals with violence, not romance. The Washington House voted to raise the fee for a marriage license to help pay for domestic violence protection. One objection, "Several critics said the bill doesn't tap domestic partners, including same-sex couples, to pay costs. Laws against domestic violence cover unmarried as well as married couples." Unfortunately the UBB code won't take the URL for the article in the normal way, so here is the article: Olympia's Valentine session deals with violence, not romance
- Appeals court upholds gay equity ruling and Wash. court upholds gay equity ruling. The Washington Appeals Court for Eastern Washington has ruled that property in a 10-year lesbian relationship was to be split as if the couple had been married. An interesting point I heard more on radio reports, but only mentioned in one of the articles, was that Washington treats the break-up of a unmarried het couple under certain circumstances as if they were a married couple. So, the Appeals Court for Eastern Washington thought it fair to apply the same standard to same-sex relationships. (Washington State does not have common law marriages, so issues had to be defined for unmarried het couples, too.)
Like it or not, the legislative branch and courts have to deal with the issues involved with same-sex couples living in long term relationships. This goes particularly for the courts, as these issues are forced upon them by the existence of same-sex couples.
So, we can let the courts cobble together a House That Jack Built out of case law, or we extend the system that is already in place. These are the only two options that actually exist. Wishing gay couples would go away is not an option; the courts generally frown on stoning people these days.
[UBB Code edited]
[ 15. February 2004, 02:27: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
How many things can you think of that are likely to be abusive or harmful that are legal?
If something's absolutely harmless, then it's pretty hard to think of a basis for criminalising it!
If something is abusive or harmful then it is a sensible question to ask - is it OK for it to be legal or not? The answer may be yes - go for it, with certain restrictions even if it's harmful (alcohol/cigarettes) or no, not at all (child abuse/domstic violence), but it's hardly a silly question.
I'm quite happy to put gay marriage in the harmless category. Is it harming anyone? Nope, not that I can see. Polygamy I'm less sure about - I'm still thinking and reading, but the kind of questions it raises about the possibilities for child maltreatment and discrimination against women make it a harder question for me.
L.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Incidently, as a person that has a stake in this argument, my thoughts are that we are not seeing gay couples trying to act like het couples. Instead, over the past 40-50 years, het couples are acting more and more like gay couples. So, if het couples get benefits and responsibilities under the law, why shouldn't gay couples?
Can you explain what this means?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
