|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
If we must have "Defense of Marriage" acts, constitutional articles, etc., to undergird the traditional concept, two little words should be added:
"Marrige is the union of one man and one woman--
for life."
That oughta stop the proposal dead in its tracks.
IMHO, the best and most necessary practical measure to defend marriage would be very simple:
stop awarding child custody routinely to the ex-wife.
About 3/4 of divorces are initiated by the woman, because she knows damn well that she can walk away not only with the kids but with a large monthly child-support award, and often with the house to boot.
About a century ago, child custody would usually go to the father. And divorces were much rarer.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
About 3/4 of divorces are initiated by the woman, because she knows damn well that she can walk away not only with the kids but with a large monthly child-support award, and often with the house to boot.
Citation, please?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Citation: The Case for Father Custody, by Daniel Amneus. p.19.
I blush to see that he in turn does not cite an authority for this assertion, unlike many others. The book is a horrible rant, not at all well written, but his basic points make sense to me.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
it should be obvious to a mayor, Bede, that constitutional law is not only the constitution itself, but also the volumes and volumes of law written ~on~ the constitution.
We have a democratic means of sorting these things out. And when a politician ignores that democratic process, it all seems so.... undemocratic.
I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice the democratic process for my political issues.
Zach
The mayor's office said they would obey a direct court order to stop, so he is not setting himself up as a petty dictator. Instead, he has set up a situation that forces the courts to deal with the issue.* The California courts have to now: there are thousands of gay couples with marriage certificates.
I don't know anything California law (not living there), but it is probable that the mayor could face some sort of legal sanction for ordering the issuance of marriage licences. I would expect something in the law, case law, or constitutional law to cover a public official ordering something prohibited by statute. Apparently, he appears ready to accept what happens to him. This is the possible price of civil disobedience.
I don't see how you separate "democratic process" from "political process." While I can't find it right now, but there is a famous quote that goes something like, "Even the Chief Justice (of the Supreme Court) reads the morning paper." Sometimes the politics has good results; sometimes, bad. Still, it is all politics.
By the way, after further reflection, it wouldn't surprise me to find out one day the hizzoner the mayor did this to take some pressure off of pro-gay marriage forces in Massachusetts. After all, MA now is not the first state with gay couples with US marriage licenses.
Case law is being established across the US now that shows this is not an isolated problem. No one can prove harm by allowing gay marriages to be recognized by the state, especially since the relationships already exist. I think we have a good chance of having two states with gay marriage from all of this.
And, it only takes 40 Senators in Congress to absolutely stop any amendment to the US constitution; fewer than that to slow it down until people become used to the idea.
*Courts in Washington state seem particularly adept at closing their eyes to ruling on same-sex marriage in recent years. They simply won't touch any case about this, period. Considering that Washington has an Equal Rights Amendment to its state constitution with regards to sex (gender), it is going to be hard for a court to rule against gay marriage--if one will ever touch a case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Herminator
Shipmate
# 5250
|
Posted
OK, I am for gay marriage. I believe that the advantages that heterosexual couples that take up longtime responsibility for one another should also be given to homosexual couples who do this. In germany we are reaching this state slowly, but it is not called marriage to placate all those "fundamentalist"religious people like me. It is not possible for them to adopt children, but in AFAIK all other aspects they are equal to heterosexual couples, and why shouldn´t they be?
Still, I believe it to be sin, and the church should not bless this kind of union! But that is the "religious side and should not be taken into account by the state.
--------------------
"Wizards in trousers? Not in my university! It`s sissy. People´d laugh." said Ridcully
-Terry Pratchett: Soul Music
Posts: 83 | From: Ich bin ein Berliner! | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
After all, MA now is not the first state with gay couples with US marriage licenses.
Excuse my ignorance, but I was under the impression that Hawaii had allowed gay marriage for some time now. Am I mistaken, or is that for some reason not relevant to this debate?
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Surely the difference between recognising civil unions between gay people and recognising polygamy is that in the first instance such unions are monogamous and in the second instance they are not.
There may, for aught I know, be a case for legalising polygamy but it is entirely separate from legalising monogamous relationships between people of the same sex.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (emphasis added)
Thank you for pointing that out. Now proponents of "gay marriage" will have to point out how disallowing marriage between people of the same sex is a denial of equal protection of the laws. The only way that can take place is a redefinition of marriage.
Up till now there's been no law declaring that heterosexuals can get married but homosexuals can't; the only law is that people of the opposite sex can get married but people of the same sex can't. Since we know that who you sleep with doesn't determine your orientation, how exactly would a legal determination be made as to whether a person is heterosexual or homosexual and whether a person is being denied marriage on the basis of his/her sexual orientation?
There's no denial of equal protection, because anyone can get married--if marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. This isn't about the denial of a right, but the demand for a new right pretty much unknown in history.
Yet I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes law everywhere in the U.S., as our judges have shown themselves able to justify absolutely anything on the basis of "right to privacy".
[And Callan, if marriage is to be redefined, then who sets the limits on how far it can be redefined?]
[ 18. February 2004, 13:06: Message edited by: Kyralessa ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Shallow confession time:
My only objection to all of this is it reinforces to the vast relatively conservative middle America the impression that liberals in office are just waiting to throw out all of our most deeply cherished institutions without regard to the law, even. Whatever I may think about gay marriage, what I really care about is defeating Bush in a few months. I want this so badly that I'll need therapy if he wins again. Anything that makes his losing less likely annoys me right now.
--------------------
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
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Up till now there's been no law declaring that heterosexuals can get married but homosexuals can't
Homosexuals are allowed to get married. Just not to each other. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Up till now there's been no law declaring that heterosexuals can get married but homosexuals can't
Homosexuals are allowed to get married. Just not to each other.
Zach
Wow! What an original argument! I've never heard that before! Yowzah!
(Repetition doesn't make people agree with you, you know).
I do think that the Equal Protection argument isn't a good one; it probably wouldn't work on the federal level.
--------------------
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
I brought up the wedge issue earlier, and the political reality is this will not split the Republican vote. I would imagine the Kerry and or Edwards campaigns would look at this like a meteor picking up speed as the events continue to unfold.
This issue may not be a popularity contest, but the November elections are.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Golly, Laura, it wasn't an argument. (Even if it was, I've never heard it.) ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Golly, Laura, it wasn't an argument. (Even if it was, I've never heard it.)
Zach
Faithful Sheepdog tried that one already on page 3 of this thread!
--------------------
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
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's as old as the hills.
Problem is, Zach, you have to look at it how it appears from a personal perspective, not from how it can be made to appear in purely abstract terms.
The thing is, a heterosexual couple can recognise their relationship in marriage.
A homosexual couple cannot.
That is why, from the individual personal perspective, the rights are not equal.
Whether they stand up in law is anyone's guess.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?
The various details of marriage have varied markedly over time. Depending on time and place, a wife has had the status of being property of the husband, being a co-equal of the husband, and various states in between. Depending on time and place, it has been considered valid or invalid for a man to have more than one wife, and in a few places, it has been acceptable for a wife to have multiple husbands (who are often brothers). Though having a stable environment to raise children is probably a big part of how marriage came to be, it is still coherent to speak of a childless marriage.
That we can even coherently debate same-sex marriage and know what each other is talking about indicates that "same-sex marriage" is not an oxymoron like "square circle." Both sides have a mental picture something along the lines of a gay couple living together, having a sexual relationship, and having particular legal rights. In short, we know more or less what we mean when we refer to "same-sex marriage."
It seems to me that there are only two defining constants of marriage: (1) at least one sexual relationship that is at least nominally expected to be permanent and (2) acknowledgement by the community that this relationship is legitimate, whatever that legitimacy may entail. Everything else is details.
It seems to me, at least, that the question is not whether to expand the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships. Rather, the question is whether to legitimize committed same-sex relationships such that they can be considered marriages.
I think this is the real reason why conservative Christians are so up in arms about same-sex marriage, and even why moderate Christians aren't too comfortable with it, either. It is difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to study the Scriptures and not come to the conclusion that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. (Arguments about whether homosexual relationships are really Christian, biblical, etc., belong in Dead Horses.) If the state allows same-sex marriage, it means not just that gay couples now have certain legal rights, but that the community, however grudgingly, has conferred a legitimacy that is out of sync with the understanding of most churches. For many Christians, rightly or wrongly, this is unsettling.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?
It seems to me, at least, that the question is not whether to expand the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships. Rather, the question is whether to legitimize committed same-sex relationships such that they can be considered marriages.
I think this is the real reason why conservative Christians are so up in arms about same-sex marriage, and even why moderate Christians aren't too comfortable with it, either. It is difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to study the Scriptures and not come to the conclusion that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. (Arguments about whether homosexual relationships are really Christian, biblical, etc., belong in Dead Horses.) If the state allows same-sex marriage, it means not just that gay couples now have certain legal rights, but that the community, however grudgingly, has conferred a legitimacy that is out of sync with the understanding of most churches. For many Christians, rightly or wrongly, this is unsettling.
Ignorant limey tip-toes cautiously into US constitutional waters/
If I understand correctly, would this be a consideration which might actually strengthen the legal case for gay marriage in the US?
If the only substantial arguments against it are religious, then in a society which operates separation of church and state, surely such arguments shouldn't sway the state? - as it must treat its citizens equally and not favour the religious beliefs of one group to the detriment of another.
Just asking!
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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?
It seems to me, at least, that the question is not whether to expand the definition of marriage to cover same-sex relationships. Rather, the question is whether to legitimize committed same-sex relationships such that they can be considered marriages.
I think this is the real reason why conservative Christians are so up in arms about same-sex marriage, and even why moderate Christians aren't too comfortable with it, either. It is difficult, though not necessarily impossible, to study the Scriptures and not come to the conclusion that homosexual relationships are illegitimate. (Arguments about whether homosexual relationships are really Christian, biblical, etc., belong in Dead Horses.) If the state allows same-sex marriage, it means not just that gay couples now have certain legal rights, but that the community, however grudgingly, has conferred a legitimacy that is out of sync with the understanding of most churches. For many Christians, rightly or wrongly, this is unsettling.
Ignorant limey tip-toes cautiously into US constitutional waters/
If I understand correctly, would this be a consideration which might actually strengthen the legal case for gay marriage in the US?
If in a courtroom the question was framed the way I framed it, quite possibly.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
There's no denial of equal protection, because anyone can get married--if marriage is defined as between one man and one woman. This isn't about the denial of a right, but the demand for a new right pretty much unknown in history.
[And Callan, if marriage is to be redefined, then who sets the limits on how far it can be redefined?]
Anatole France wrote:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."
I'd be interested in your analysis as to whether or not this sentence is an example of irony.
Same-sex marriage was quite well known in the Roman Empire, i.e. in New Testament and primitive-church times. Evidence that the church opposed this institution is surprisingly hard to come by.
Marriage has known many other definitions, as well. Our Lord seems to have stressed that it is a lifelong relationship. But that little detail seems to be dropping out of the American "definition of marriage", as almost half of them end in divorce. Heaven forfend that a definition of marriage would cramp a moral drawbridger's own style.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Anatole France wrote:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."
I'd be interested in your analysis as to whether or not this sentence is an example of irony.
Certainly, it's irony. Would you argue from it that stealing is morally wrong for the rich but not for the poor? Or that theft should be a crime for the rich but legal for the poor? It sounds akin to the argument that we ought to let homosexuals marry because heterosexuals haven't done so well with it; and it is wrong for the same rather obvious reason.
quote:
Same-sex marriage was quite well known in the Roman Empire, i.e. in New Testament and primitive-church times. Evidence that the church opposed this institution is surprisingly hard to come by.
Even most "gay marriage" advocates don't assert something so preposterous. But supposing for argument's sake that it were true, it certainly silences those who propose that faithful homosexual relationships were unknown in New Testament times and thus Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them. I suppose you'll have to decide which way you'd rather have it and then let us know.
quote:
Marriage has known many other definitions, as well...
Which is why conservatives keep bringing up the polygamy argument. To argue equal rights for one group (homosexuals) but not the other (polygamists), or redefinition to encompass one group but not the other, is simply hypocrisy. But the "homosexual marriage" advocates don't seem to have the courage of their convictions here. Could this be because most polygamists aren't liberals?
--------------------
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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
And Callan, if marriage is to be redefined, then who sets the limits on how far it can be redefined?
I assume for the moment that we are talking about civil marriage and not the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.
Civil marriage is regulated by the laws which are laid down by the government which is, in turn, accountable to the electorate. It seems to me that these decisions are about justice but they are pragmatic and contingent decisions. If a case can be made, then a government can legitimately extend the privileges and duties currently attendant on civil unions to homosexual couples. This doesn't oblige any given church to recognise such unions as valid marriages (The RCC does not recognise those who have remarried after divorce as being validly married, although not even JL advocates the repeal of the divorce laws). Nor is there a simple dichotomy between the state recognising either The Blessed Sacrament of Holy Matrimony or sexual anarchy. There are a number of indeterminate positions as the state of divorce laws indicate.
Incidentally the distinction between heterosexual polygamy and homosexuality is not only made by 'liberals' but by 'conservative' protestants in the context of the relative tolerance of polygamy among African evangelicals. I raise this point, not to make a cheap shot at African evangelicals, (although it will come as no surprise to regular readers of these boards that I am not a fan) but as an indication that the issues are entirely separate. Saying that tolerating homosexual civil unions commits you to tolerating polygamy (or, indeed, vice versa) because both involve a liberalisation (or at least secularisation) of sexual morality, is like saying that tolerating the privatisation of electricity supply commits you to the legalisation of drugs because both measures are supported by arguments about market forces.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Certainly, it's irony. Would you argue from it that stealing is morally wrong for the rich but not for the poor?
[aside] Both S. Ambrose and Aquinas argued something along these lines - that it is not theft for a starving person to steal bread. [/aside]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Speaking of entymology, how about this? A dictionary definition of matrimony is:
quote:
Matrimony: the state of being married; marriage see matri, mony
Matri: a combining form meaning “mother”
Mony: a suffix found on abstract nouns denoting a status, role or function (matrimony, testimony) or a personal quality or kind of behavior (acrimony, sanctimony).
Does this imply that all men marry their mothers?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Anatole France wrote:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread."
I'd be interested in your analysis as to whether or not this sentence is an example of irony.
Certainly, it's irony. Would you argue from it that stealing is morally wrong for the rich but not for the poor? Or that theft should be a crime for the rich but legal for the poor?
You say it's irony but show no sense of the passage's irony whatsoever. Your ability to miss the point is breathtaking.
If theft is categorically wrong, then why should there be a crime specifically against stealing bread?
All too often in practice, theft is wrong for the poor and o.k. for the rich. How many ex-Enron executives have yet seen the inside of a jail cell?
As for sleeping under bridges and begging, these are basic needs of certain powerless people, while powerful people almost by definition have absolutely no interest in them. So if the latter find them the least bit inconvenient or unsightly, they pass facile laws against them, being no skin off their own noses. Majestic equality, yeah.
To a heterosexual man, sleeping with another man for love is about as appealing as sleeping under a bridge. So if he finds unappetizing the thought of anyone else doing so, well, just pile on the sanctions as thick as he can manage.
Gray Temple, a mere clergyman, tells of being invited to address his colleagues on the subject of biblical authority. He "panicked" and called for a crash meeting with his friend Walter, a theologian. "Walter shot back, 'Are you Episcopalians talking about sex again?' 'How did you know?' I asked. 'Because that's the only time you Episcopalians ever worry about biblical authority. I wish you'd worry about it when you talk about economics.'"
quote:
Even most "gay marriage" advocates don't assert something so preposterous.
For evidence, see Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality by John Boswell.
quote:
it certainly silences those who propose that faithful homosexual relationships were unknown in New Testament times and thus Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them.
Can you cite anyone who proposes this? That's one strawman I don't mind knocking over with you. My understanding that faithful homosexual relationships were so perfectly well known in New Testament times that Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
You say it's irony but show no sense of the passage's irony whatsoever. Your ability to miss the point is breathtaking.
If theft is categorically wrong, then why should there be a crime specifically against stealing bread?
A crime specifically against stealing bread? In what society and time, exactly? I have absolutely no idea what context you're coming from. Perhaps it's your failure to provide this context which accounts for your respiratory troubles.
quote:
All too often in practice, theft is wrong for the poor and o.k. for the rich. How many ex-Enron executives have yet seen the inside of a jail cell?
"If I were in charge of the world..." ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:
As for sleeping under bridges and begging, these are basic needs of certain powerless people, while powerful people almost by definition have absolutely no interest in them. So if the latter find them the least bit inconvenient or unsightly, they pass facile laws against them, being no skin off their own noses. Majestic equality, yeah.
To a heterosexual man, sleeping with another man for love is about as appealing as sleeping under a bridge. So if he finds unappetizing the thought of anyone else doing so, well, just pile on the sanctions as thick as he can manage.
Because to certain others, sleeping with someone of the opposite sex is a basic need?
quote:
Gray Temple, a mere clergyman, tells of being invited to address his colleagues on the subject of biblical authority. He "panicked" and called for a crash meeting with his friend Walter, a theologian. "Walter shot back, 'Are you Episcopalians talking about sex again?' 'How did you know?' I asked. 'Because that's the only time you Episcopalians ever worry about biblical authority. I wish you'd worry about it when you talk about economics.'"
Clever. Ever read Dorothy Sayers? She was an Anglican who talked about economics. And I myself am not an Anglican, so there you go.
quote:
quote:
Even most "gay marriage" advocates don't assert something so preposterous.
For evidence, see Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality by John Boswell.
Boswell! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Now there's a levelheaded, unbiased source if I ever heard one! Arguing that because no one knows what medieval brotherhood ceremonies were, they must have been "gay marriage" ceremonies strikes me as akin to what the Mormons do with I Corinthians 15:29.
quote:
quote:
it certainly silences those who propose that faithful homosexual relationships were unknown in New Testament times and thus Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them.
Can you cite anyone who proposes this? That's one strawman I don't mind knocking over with you. My understanding that faithful homosexual relationships were so perfectly well known in New Testament times that Paul couldn't have been specifically forbidding them.
Kindly read all 30 pages of the Homosexuality thread in Dead Horses, and I daresay you'll find a few examples.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Because to certain others, sleeping with someone of the opposite sex is a basic need?
Well, in the "Old Testament" keeping the world populated seems to be considered a basic need. So it is for most secularists. (Scratch "world", perhaps, and substitute "universe.")
As to this desideratum, I admit the New Testament is remarkably silent, even in contexts when one might expect at least a polite bow of the head in that direction.
But never fear, your champion Saint Paul gave a different rationale: "it is better to marry than to burn."
Now, what is a gay person supposed to do with that?
By your limited definition of marriage, a homosexual could marry and he or she would still burn-- as, probably, would his or her unfortunate spouse. Our Lord didn't look kindly on binding others into lives of misery out of a misguided punctiliousness. My biblically informed ethical sense tells me that this would be one of the most immoral things a gay person as such could possibly do.
Do you have a case for it? Better practical advice?
quote:
Boswell! Now there's a levelheaded, unbiased source if I ever heard one!
He was out to make a case for acceptance of gay people, to be sure. But he was also an honest and scrupulous scholar. We are talking about verifiable historical conditions here, even legal documents that can be now inspected (the fact that they might have been long hidden notwithstanding). In this situation, an ad hominem attack is unwarranted.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
Ok, time for the setting straight of some *things*
1) Massachusetts has not yet begun to fight, I mean issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. (An interesting thread here maybe - you don't have to actually *be* homosexual to engage in a same sex marriage. No one would pop quiz you on the technical aspects (I give you a B+ for theory, but you failed the practical.). So would those of you all smug that homosexuals already can marry please go get excited about the new right that your homosexual brethern are lobbying for you?) Massachusetts has a court decision, and an additional advisory opionion, both of which can be read in full here: Gay-Civil-Unions.com But there aint no issuing of the marriage licenses for such unions until May.
2) SF is indeedy issuing the marriage licenses, and in light of current Supreme Court rulings, Masachusetts rulings, Canadian rulings and Texas rulings, I think the jury is spectacularly OUT as to whether or not the mayor of SF is going to lose this action in the courts. Whoever wins or loses, it is going to be appealed, and will ultimately wind up in the Supreme Court of California.
3) Hawaii had a referendum a couple of years ago as to whether or not to hold same sex marriages. It did not pass.
4) Vermont permits same sex "civil unions" but they're not the same as civil marriage.
Anne
[Fixed link.]
[ 19. February 2004, 00:04: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
--------------------
Go Anne Go, you is the bestest shipmate evah - Kelly Alveswww.goannego.com
Posts: 2227 | From: Home of the 2004 World Series Champion Red Sox | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Godfather Avatar:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
After all, MA now is not the first state with gay couples with US marriage licenses.
Excuse my ignorance, but I was under the impression that Hawaii had allowed gay marriage for some time now. Am I mistaken, or is that for some reason not relevant to this debate?
The state Supreme Court made a ruling, but either the law or state constitution was changed before the ruling could take effect.
Whatever, it didn't happen.
--------------------
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 J. J. Ramsey:
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?
The various details of marriage have varied markedly over time....
An argument given is that marriage is for the raising of children.
If a het couple does not or can not produce children, is that a marriage?
If a gay couple somehow acquires a child or children (previous marriage, adoption, etc.), is that a marriage?
Like I said, the differences are disappearing.
In effect, gay marriage exists now--with or without state sanction. The only question is how the state handles inevitable issues, such as property rights and children. Do we really want to leave this up to the court system to define only through case law?
--------------------
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 Louise:
Ignorant limey tip-toes cautiously into US constitutional waters/
If I understand correctly, would this be a consideration which might actually strengthen the legal case for gay marriage in the US?
If the only substantial arguments against it are religious, then in a society which operates separation of church and state, surely such arguments shouldn't sway the state? - as it must treat its citizens equally and not favour the religious beliefs of one group to the detriment of another.
Just asking!
L.
By Jove, I thinks she has it! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Of course, that would be in a perfect world.
Just because we don't have an established church or religion in the US doesn't mean we lack an unofficial "state religion." After all, to listen to George the Lesser sometimes you would swear [some would stop right here] that he thinks he was elected Presiding Bishop and not President.
The "state religion" in the US is wonderful. It means whatever the listener wants it to mean. Of course, there are occasional problems when one group tries use their understanding as if it is everyone else's understanding.
--------------------
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
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
Kyralessa and Zach, and anyone else who believes the "But gays are already allowed to marry!" argument:
If a law was passed forbidding anyone from having sex with women, but sex with men was still legal; and if that law applied equally to everybody -- man or woman, gay or straight -- you presumably wouldn't consider that to be inequitable either...?
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
quote:
Originally posted by J. J. Ramsey:
Would the concept of "same-sex marriage" require a redefinition of marriage?
The various details of marriage have varied markedly over time....
An argument given is that marriage is for the raising of children.
If a het couple does not or can not produce children, is that a marriage?
I think I dealt with that in the same post from which you quoted: "Though having a stable environment to raise children is probably a big part of how marriage came to be, it is still coherent to speak of a childless marriage."
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
thursday+
Shipmate
# 5264
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But never fear, your champion Saint Paul gave a different rationale: "it is better to marry than to burn."
Now, what is a gay person supposed to do with that?
I think if you check, you'll find that the sense is 'be consumed with lust' rather than 'burn in hell'. So it applies to both orientations equally. Whether other parts of scripture say otherwise is another question.
--------------------
Jesus did not rise from the dead and announce, "A Blessed Easter! I'm the Second Person of the Trinity!," then spend the remaining days until his Ascension instructing the apostles in rubrics.
Newman's Own.
Posts: 392 | From: home is in your head | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Alogon
quote:
By your limited definition of marriage
It's not Kyralessa's view of marriage, it is the view of the majority of Christendom and has been since it's inception.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lioba
Shipmate
# 42
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Herminator:
OK, I am for gay marriage. I believe that the advantages that heterosexual couples that take up longtime responsibility for one another should also be given to homosexual couples who do this. In germany we are reaching this state slowly, but it is not called marriage to placate all those "fundamentalist"religious people like me. It is not possible for them to adopt children, but in AFAIK all other aspects they are equal to heterosexual couples , and why shouldn´t they be?
Still, I believe it to be sin, and the church should not bless this kind of union! But that is the "religious side and should not be taken into account by the state.
As a german lesbian I can tell you that a civil union of gays is by no means like a heterosexual marriage at the moment. It seems to be that we are given all the duties and very little of the rights. There is no common tax declaration, no reduction on inheritance taxes and no marriage benefits in the public service. What we were given didn't cost the state anything or even saves money like being excluded from social aid. Although I'm not really interested in the financial side of a possible lesbian marriage I just wanted to set the record straight.
--------------------
Conversion is a life-long process.
Posts: 502 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
Just a thought, arising from the welfare (etc.) arguments from recognising same sex arguments:
Does your local body of law not permit the transfer of estate through grant of a last will and testament?
I'm particularly interested in UK (even Scots) Law.
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by thursday:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But never fear, your champion Saint Paul gave a different rationale: "it is better to marry than to burn."
Now, what is a gay person supposed to do with that?
I think if you check, you'll find that the sense is 'be consumed with lust' rather than 'burn in hell'. So it applies to both orientations equally.
Of course that is what the sense is-- although I don't see why we can't infer a more neutral term such as "libido" for this part of the human condition. I'm at a loss to see what would have made you conclude that I were confused about this.
By definition, a homosexual does not get sexual satisfaction with a member of the opposite sex. Some of them may even find the act impossible to perform. His or her desire will be for someone else than the spouse and will be unrelieved. The marriage is irrelevant as a solution. Even worse, his or her partner, probably initially unsuspecting, will be left frustrated as well.
Many such marriages could not even have been contracted without an element of deceit. And for what?
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
Just a thought, arising from the welfare (etc.) arguments from recognising same sex arguments:
Does your local body of law not permit the transfer of estate through grant of a last will and testament?
I'm particularly interested in UK (even Scots) Law.
LFD
Wills can be challenged in court. It doesn't make any difference if the partners were together for 50 years, someone could always claim the surviving partner did something to unduly influence the deceased to reduce or cut someone out of a will. "He never did like me. He turned the deceased against me, even though I am flesh and blood."
Then, there is the case of both parnters dying at about the same time (auto wreck, for example). The fact that, if this happens in my case, my "sister-in-law" becomes my personal representative (executor) according to my will may not sit well with my brother, even though he lives in another state. If I was considered legally married, then my "sister-in-law" would become my sister-in-law. It would be harder to challenge in court (though not impossible).
All those ways gay couples approach creating a marriage-like relationship don't always 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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
Does your local body of law not permit the transfer of estate through grant of a last will and testament?
Wills are contested. Relatives who are rapacious as well as homophobic might argue that the deceased had made his bequest under an undue and unnatural influence by this other random guy who had weaseled his way into his life and stood to benefit.
Perhaps you have no idea how vindictive relatives can be who had always despised their queer son/brother/uncle Bruce and those other strange men he hung out with. Bruce's death is their chance for revenge. There are even cases of partners returning from the funeral to the home that they had made together for decades, only to find that the locks had been changed.
A legal environment that refuses to acknowledge such relationships invites these strategies.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LowFreqDude
Shipmate
# 3152
|
Posted
Thanks Bede, Alogon.
I am aware that wills can be challenged, but what is the success rate of challenges to same sex partners? Surely, a better lobbying strategy would be to shore up the weaknessess in testament law (for want of a better word...) rather than risk the more controversial head on clash with those who are conservative about the nature of marriage?
On a personal note, as a caracatured ""homophobe"", I would not take issue with ensuring that the express will of an individual is honoured, and that the estate goes to whoever the deceased wishes. On that front, it is a matter of fair disposal of estate, and not an issue of legitimising same sex relationships.
LFD
Posts: 625 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LowFreqDude:
I am aware that wills can be challenged, but what is the success rate of challenges to same sex partners? Surely, a better lobbying strategy would be to shore up the weaknessess in testament law (for want of a better word...) rather than risk the more controversial head on clash with those who are conservative about the nature of marriage?
Here is a non-gay challenge for you which speaks of the touchy-but-necessary nature of challenging wills: A $20 million tug of war over a widow's will
There are also things that changes to the laws about last wills and testaments can't cover. For example,
- Visitation rights when in jail (not necessarily conjungal)
- Medical power of attorney in case of a person can no longer make medical decisions for themselves
- Social Security or pension plan survivor benefits
There's more.
Yes, the medical power of attorney can be granted in advance to your partner (like I have done), but it can be challenged, too. Before an operation last October, I made it !*#%@ clear to my surgeon and to the hospital that I very much mean for my partner to have medical power of attorney with verbal directions and with fresh copies of the documents. (My parents flew in for the operation, which meant I had blood relatives present.) A husband and wife don't normally have these issues.
The other issues I meantioned mostly cannot be covered by some notarized piece of paper (pension plan being a possible exception).
--------------------
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
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
ok, to cut through an awful lot of stuff here...
can anyone explain to me what reasons _other than_ morally/religiously based ones there are for opposing leagalizing marriage between two people of the same sex? saying "it redefines the meaning of the word marriage" is not acceptable unless you can show me why redefining it is a bad idea based on something other than moral/religious/historical reasons.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
(sorry to double post, but i missed the edit time)
oh and "it weakens the institution of marrige" is only acceptable if you can show _how_ it weakens it.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
oh and "it weakens the institution of marrige" is only acceptable if you can show _how_ it weakens it.
Clearly, if women are allowed to marry other women, then ones who are married to boorish men will divorce them and run off with non-boorish women, thus weakening the institution of marriage by indirectly causing more divorces.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
nice try, mousethief, but i don't think that one holds water. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But but but -- it's the only one I could think of!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Here's how Merriam-Webster defines law
quote:
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules
That sounds a lot like morality.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
i actually can think of one, but a. i think its a pretty stupid one, and b. i don't think i've ever heard it seriously offered anyway, so i shan't get into it here.
come on people. lets hear them.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
your point, alt wally?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
