|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
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. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Mousethief---did you see the Berkley Breathed cartoon in the Sunday paper two weeks ago? I've tried to find a link to it, but no dice.
Basically, it has Opus the Penguin watching just this scenario. And if I had been married to the man portrayed in that cartoon, I would have done exactly the same thing. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes that was a classic, PaigeB. That's what I had in mind when I wrote that post.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
can anyone explain to me what reasons _other than_ morally/religiously based ones
Not all moral considerations can be dismissed out of hand.
To give the devil his due, the matter of children bothers me.
Contrary to many, I have no problem at all with gays adopting-- either individually or as couples. Although both a father and a mother are usually the ideal, either one parent or two of the same gender are certainly better than zero, which is the initial condition, right?
We must also consider that some children have been psychologically rejected, or even physically turned out of their native homes, because they are gay themselves. This gruesome fate is most assuredly to be healed by adoptive parents who understand and accept the condition because they share it. After such a trauma, shouldn't an expressed desire of the child for refuge in such a sympathetic environment be respected?
For other possible reasons, too, as in the film "Second Best", a child old enough to be heard regarding his own disposition may adamently demand a single-parent home, straight or not. One size does not fit all.
My concern is rather for children deliberately brought into the world for a gay couple. Be they ever so loving, I think that there is a serious error of omission particularly in choosing to raise a girl without a mother or a boy without a father. And of course, all such children necessarily have a biological parent off somewhere else. The conception is inherently exramarital, with one spouse a biological parent and the other not.
This is partly a moral issue, but partly quite practical. A community full of fatherless young males, or of adult males who grew up without a father's care, is also full of various dysfunctions. This phenomenon has been observed even in a community of elephants, let alone human beings.
Gay couples are neither the first nor the primary
fomenters of a blithe and cavalier assumption that we can expect children to do just fine picking up their gender identity from some random assortment of teachers, scout leaders, whatever. But the idea needs no more encouragement.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
A community full of fatherless young males, or of adult males who grew up without a father's care, is also full of various dysfunctions.
I don't recall that the after effects of the first and second world wars led to an upsurge in juvenile dysfunction and delinquency in families headed by war widows (of whom there were plenty). I think you might need to start a separate thread on this kind of assertion and show a bit more to back it up.
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
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
Actually, most of the lesbian couples I know with babies are incredibly diligent about finding male role models for both their male and female children. And not just gay men, either, but heterosexual role models.
The two lesbians with children I can think of who aren't interested in male role models both left abusive marriages.
I don't know any gay men with children born within a gay relationship, but the lesbians I know take child raising very seriously and try their absolute best to give the children all the support they could need to grow up healthy, sane adults.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
What is this "gender identity", and how does it differ from assumption of stereotypical gender roles, and why is it a Good Thing, and why is it best learned from a parent of the same gender as oneself?
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
When a deceased husband and father is cherished and often recalled by the mother, and especially when a child is old enough to remember him, there is some compensation for the lack in what everyone agrees is a lamentable misfortune.
But divorced parents aren't in the habit of speaking highly of their ex-spouses. And when a parent was never around in the first place, an effective image of him or her would be an obvious impossibility.
If you look at communities in which juvenile delinquency is rife, you will find fatherlessness a strikingly common condition among the miscreants.
--------------------
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 Alogon:
Gay couples are neither the first nor the primary fomenters of a blithe and cavalier assumption that we can expect children to do just fine picking up their gender identity from some random assortment of teachers, scout leaders, whatever. But the idea needs no more encouragement.
If this is your concern, how can any nuclear family help a child to properly develop an animus/anima?
My personal opinion is that an extended family (of some design, not necessarily blood relations) is the truly better environment than a nuclear family. There will be more examples of both genders in the child's life.
--------------------
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 CorgiGreta:
What is this "gender identity", and how does it differ from assumption of stereotypical gender roles, and why is it a Good Thing, and why is it best learned from a parent of the same gender as oneself?
Greta
My, we are opening Pandora's box, aren't we? And all along the argument has been "look, gay marriages won't change anything else very much."
I believe that. And I'm basically in favor of gay marriages, remember? Please don't talk me out of it. Because I'm definitely
not interested in the radical feminist agenda to take society totally apart and try putting it together again along lines hitherto unknown to the human species.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
If this is your concern, how can any nuclear family help a child to properly develop an animus/anima?
Huh? Please explain what you mean.
quote:
My personal opinion is that an extended family (of some design, not necessarily blood relations) is the truly better environment than a nuclear family. There will be more examples of both genders in the child's life.
Sounds good. But how often do we still see it?
[Edited quote UBB]
[ 19. February 2004, 23:18: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
American Psychological Association
quote:
Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
There's not as much research on it as people would like, - but certainly none going the other way. Most of the negative stuff on delinquency comes from settings where there are very bad experiences of parents coming in and out of the family (often in traumatic circumstances - like divorce or death) and children being caught in unstable relationships in single parent households on the poverty line.
Having two parents in a stable relationship with positive attitudes towards opposite sex friends and opposite sex relatives who are welcome in the house (which is what most gay relationships I know are like) is just not comparable.
Relevant Dead Horse thread where this should be discussed instead of derailing this one:
Should homosexuals be allowed to adopt children
L.
[ 19. February 2004, 22:59: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Thank you, Louise. These findings (and I have heard of them before) are certainly reassuring.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
nicolermw
quote:
your point, alt wally?
That whatever side you're on, this is about morality. The law to me is not an abstract idea, it is an expression of our morality. This has religious and secular aspects and is greatly influenced by history, so I don't think you can leave any of those aside when judging whether or not the definition of marriage should be changed (even if it's only marriage as administered by the state).
I heard an example of this tonight on the way home from work on an unrelated topic. John Edwards was talking about the unfairness of some trade agreements and how it has cost people their jobs. He didn't even touch on the legality of the agreements, he just said they went against our values. He made an appeal to morality, and I would assume act on that moral influence in changing the law if in power.
[ 20. February 2004, 02:45: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think I probably agree with you Wally that some liberals (be they social or economic) tend to talk as if law and morality are entirely separate categories and that this is unhelpful.
But law and morality are still separate to some extent. It is morally wrong for a miser to allow a benefactor to die in poverty. It is not morally wrong for an itinerant salesman to open a stall in a shopping centre. But the law has nothing to say in the first instance and but the itinerant salesman can be prosecuted, or at least removed by the police. Which suggests that enforcing or upholding morality is not the law's sole purpose.
There is also the question of "whose morality?" Personally, I think that divorce is wrong except in circumstances of abuse, adultery or desertion. I think that this is justified with reference to reason, scripture and tradition*, but I accept that thoughtful persons of goodwill will differ from me. I'm not sure, however, that I think that the divorce laws ought to reflect my beliefs in that particular instance.
I think that there are also questions of justice and pragmatic considerations that apply, even when we think an act is wrong. Consider the case of a man who deserts his terminally ill wife of twenty five years and their Down's Syndrome son and marries his young and pretty secretary, without making even a token effort to ensure the wife and son's welfare. This is, I think , the action of a bad and selfish man but we wouldn't on that account request that the court rule the marriage null and void and insist that the secretary be not regarded as the next of kin by the hospital or the undertaker when he has a heart attack. To do so, would be an injustice, even if we recognise that the situation only leaves us with a choice of injustices.
Now even if we don't approve of homosexuality or believe that homosexual relationships are equivalent to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, this does not mean that we are obliged to say that two people in a committed homosexual relationship should not be extended the benefits and privileges of a civil union. If one of the partners dies and the other partner is ruthlessly excluded from the funeral (imagine attending your wife's funeral and not being prayed for by name or having your marriage even mentioned in the address or being acknowledged as a principal mourner because the next of kin refused to consult you and did not tell the minister of your existence) and finds the locks on the shared house changed, this is surely an injustice. And it is the historic teaching of the Church, justified by Reason, Scripture and Tradition that injustice is a bad thing even when there are homosexuals involved.
*In alphabetical order rather than order of importance, in case anyone was wondering.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Callan, yes I think you outline well why the law is not simply enforced shared morality. Regarding the OP
quote:
Now even if we don't approve of homosexuality or believe that homosexual relationships are equivalent to the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, this does not mean that we are obliged to say that two people in a committed homosexual relationship should not be extended the benefits and privileges of a civil union.
This touches on why this is a problem for a lot of people, myself included. I don't want to change the definition of marriage. I recognize there is a need to give legal protection to people who are now in non-traditional relationships and I would support civil unions. The polls I've seen seem to indicate this is a widely held position.
I think this issue will be incredibly divisive, because I don't think the civil union compromise is viewed as sufficient by those in favor of Gay marriage.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I don't want to change the definition of marriage.
Except that the definition of marriage isn't really the issue. If it were, "same-sex marriage" would be an oxymoron, and the whole debate over "same-sex marriage" would be dominated by semantic confusion and people on one side of the debate having a dog of a time understanding what the other side is even talking about. However, this is not what is happening. Instead, we all have a pretty common understanding of what same-sex marriage would entail; our mental picture of it is something along the lines of a gay couple living together, presumably sleeping together, and intending to do so permanently, and an official acknowledgment legitimizing the arrangement and bestowing certain rights and privileges--which in this day and age would be a marriage license. The fact that we can have a common picture is an indication that the definition of marriage that we actually use in practice, as opposed to the one that we may verbally proclaim, is quite capable, as is, of accomodating gays.
What is really going on with the whole issue of "redefinition" is a confusion of what is essential and what is proper. One can put an entry in a dictionary that defines a human hand as an appendage at the end of the arm with four fingers and a thumb, yet if one loses a finger, the appendage at the end of one's arm still gets called a hand, a broken hand, an improper hand, but a hand nonetheless. The fact that one can refer to a three-fingered hand as a "hand" is a sign that the above dictionary definition is incorrect and reflects not the essentials of what makes a hand a hand, but what is understood to be a proper hand. Those who are saying that gay marriage would constitute a redefinition of marriage are making the same kind of mistake, saying that the definition of marriage requires a man and a woman, yet speaking of "gay marriage" not as a semantically void phrase, like "square circle," but as a coherent but bad idea. The supposed definition of marriage above reflects not the essentials of marriage but a particular understanding of what is a proper marriage.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
I think this issue will be incredibly divisive, because I don't think the civil union compromise is viewed as sufficient by those in favor of Gay marriage.
This depends on one's definition of civil union and marriage. Marriage, in the sense of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony, as far as I am concerned, is the lifelong union of a man and a woman. The situation is complicated by the cases of annulment and divorce, but I think that these are recognised as exceptions to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Marriage popularly means the union of a man and a woman which has been recognised by the state. A state recognised marriage is not necessarily marriage in the eyes of the church - remarried divorcees are not married in the eyes of the RCC, someone on their fourth marriage is not validly married in the eyes of the Orthodox church and so forth. Yet popularly we speak of marriage in that sense when we are discussing the private life of Ivan the Terrible, Henry VIII or Liz Taylor.
I'm sure that if gay civil unions are recognised, then they will be attended by ceremonies and parties and we will, when meeting a gay couple for the first time at a dinner party, say things like: "How long have you been married for?" just as, I'm sure, Roman Catholics do in the case of divorcees now.
But it won't be the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony(My own view on such unions was set out very well by St Osmund a few pages ago). So I don't think any passes are being sold. YMMV.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I think this issue will be incredibly divisive, because I don't think the civil union compromise is viewed as sufficient by those in favor of Gay marriage.
I am one of those who would in theory consider a civil union provision sufficient if it were robust and made certain parties feel better.
Of course, you must understand that some of us aren't fond of peppering everyday conversation with polysyllabic legalistic neologisms. Any fellow real conservative will presumably applaud if we hang onto sturdy old standard English informally, e.g. calling oneself "married" (instead of-- what? "having contracted a civil union"?)
But please, let's not speak of "the" civil union compromise, as though it were either a single concept or something with any widespread actual existence. It isn't, and that is the problem. In most places, let us remember, after pleading for acceptance or relief for over a hundred years, gay relationships still have zero legal recognition. If it weren't for a supreme court decision whose ink is barely dry on the page, they might still be crimes.
Events in Hawaii some ten years ago gave us hope that pressing for full-fledged marriage might be as realistic a way to get what we need as any kind of gradualism, compromise, or crazy-quilt of separate local measures. From what I can see, this may still be the case.
If so it proves, then discomfited heterosexuals have only themselves to blame after the centuries of unalloyed oppression that they have dished out.
--------------------
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
I think it is a good point that there's not just "*one* civil union compromise.
The whole point though is that churches won't be forced to perform same sex marriages if they don't want to. (And bear in mind that some already are performing such a sacrament, without state recognition. But that's a whole different kettle o chum.) Just as registry offices in the UK can perform marriages that aren't sacraments, now we ask ourselves if we extend the same state priveledges to our homosexual bretheren to marry whom they choose, is that acceptable to us?
I was reading a book last night that dealt with the South in 1964 and I was struck with the similarities. The Civil Rights Act passed, and there was forcible integration of schools, transportation and ....churches. People were honestly convinced that society was about to fall in on itself. I cannot help but think how history will judge us in 50 years time.
I must say, that I think the argument above about the children is the most cogent and well thought out I have read in some time. My own personal thought is that if you're not going to ask straights about their child-bearing, you shouldn't ask gays though. I'm sure we can all speak from personal experience as to families that though they had all the advantages, parents stayed married, etc etc, the kids were not provided with any sort of good role model, straight or gay. Which makes me wonder if there isn't an element to all this that is really about self-definition. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Pure anatomy? The relative role in creation? What if there is an anatomical deformity? DOes that make them less a man or woman? If they can't conceive (or provide spermatazoa), does that make them less of a woman or man?
Two of my gay friends are planning to adopt, and one has asked me if I would consider having his child. There is a part of me that really thinks the two gay men are going to be far better parents than I am, which makes me wonder about this whole situation!
--------------------
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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Marriage popularly means the union of a man and a woman which has been recognised by the state. A state recognised marriage is not necessarily marriage in the eyes of the church - remarried divorcees are not married in the eyes of the RCC, someone on their fourth marriage is not validly married in the eyes of the Orthodox church and so forth.
Interesting that you bring up the RCC and the Orthodox as examples. It seems to be that in my conservative evangelical Protestant church environment, what makes a marriage a marriage is the recognition by the state. No one says this outright, but that's the impression I get. Has anyone else got a similar impression?
--------------------
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:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
I must say, that I think the argument above about the children is the most cogent and well thought out I have read in some time. My own personal thought is that if you're not going to ask straights about their child-bearing, you shouldn't ask gays though. I'm sure we can all speak from personal experience as to families that though they had all the advantages, parents stayed married, etc etc, the kids were not provided with any sort of good role model, straight or gay.
I agree (and thanks for the compliment). ![[Cool]](cool.gif) I certainly wouldn't want these thoughts taken as either an argument against gay marriage or for prohibiting, even frowning upon, their parenthood. But I just hope that gay parents remember that something is missing from their children's environment and they should bend over backwards to compensate for it.
If you'd claim categorically that a gay family is not entitled to raise children because something is less than ideal, where do you stop? Maybe the Smiths shouldn't have any children because their IQ is a little below 100. Maybe the Joneses shouldn't have any children because one of them is a hemophiliac. Maybe the Browns shouldn't have any children because they're poor. Maybe the Alogons shouldn't have any children because their country is fast becoming a banana republic. These are all valid arguments against. But someone has to go ahead and, bearing all cautions duly in mind, do it anyway. Show me a couple who think they're in the perfectposition to raise kids, no caveats whatsoever, and I can probably show you the worst prospects of all.
quote:
Which makes me wonder if there isn't an element to all this that is really about self-definition. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Pure anatomy?
Of course. We all sense that. Richard A. Hawley writes that, just as people become painfully conscious of their breathing when something is wrong with the air, so our current doubts and preoccupations over gender roles, in contrast with earlier generations that transmitted them confidently, is a symptom of something recently gone wrong with the social atmosphere.
Perhaps I was a bit hard on Greta a few posts ago. One has a right to investigate the questions that she asked. OTOH, I was taken aback by her glib string of questions as though the burden of proof to defend the obvious answers were on me.
If she's worried about children's absorbing stereotypical gender roles, I'd suggest that the best way to prevent this is to give them each something more vivid and real than a stereotype to pattern themselves on. Otherwise you leave them no alternative.
And you need men to raise men for the same reasons that you wouldn't expect young people to become electricians by apprenticing them to a plumber. Why should this be a vexed issue? I wouldn't imagine being qualified to raise a girl without a lot of help from a woman, and I certainly hope that she doesn't similarly presume herself capable of raising a boy. Unfortunately, some do. I call that smothering, or imprisonment behind a wall of estrogen. One has the right to the personal opinion that gender roles are a load of bull. But I doubt that one has the moral right to deprive children of the experiences that would enable them to make up their own minds on the subject.
quote:
Two of my gay friends are planning to adopt, and one has asked me if I would consider having his child. There is a part of me that really thinks the two gay men are going to be far better parents than I am, which makes me wonder about this whole situation!
Bless you. It's harder for a male couple to obtain a baby than it is for a female couple to obtain a thimble full of semen. That's one inequality that we're never going to get around. You would be providing a wonderful benefit, and at great personal sacrifice.
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Alogon,
When I posted yesterday, I was short on time, and the same is true today. I did not intend to be glib, but I was forced to be terse. Perhaps the questions I raised shoud be discussed in a separate thread, which would either die in a day or go to scores of pages, ultimately in dead horses. I think the notion of "gender roles" and the learning thereof is something far too complex to be used as an argument against same-gender parenthood.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
Greta,
So do I.
Olive branch??
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
/Heavenly tangent ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
As Rex is in San Francisco, we decided to get some flowers to give to one of the couples who were getting married at City Hall and he just e-mailed me the pictures. Two lovely young women and their baby - they look so happy - and the baby, of course, tried to eat the flowers! We were just so full of joy for them. We ended up getting all teary and romantic ourselves. It made me just want to rush over there and marry him!
So our completely non-scientific totally anecdotal study is that legalising gay marriage certainly strengthens our desire to get married!
/back to your regularly scheduled debate! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
cheers,
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
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
And as the movement grows - New Mexico has now started issuing same sex marriage licenses as the attorney general has declared the current state of the law "unclear" as to whether or not this is illegal. So they've opted for the "we'll see if it is legal tack" and the marriages start now!
So that makes Massachusetts, New Mexico and San Fransisco. Pretty quick spread, if you ask me.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
For those of you arguing that marriage is a sacrament, the fact is that marriage CAN BE a sacrament if that is how your religion defines it and you in fact follow/believe the tenets of your religion. But linguistically, marriage in common English (and Yankee/Canadian/Kiwi)marriage also means the civil rite as well. And if you go back and re-read my opening paragraph, my question is what are your thoughts on it if your church isn't forced to perform such ceremonies? Civil unions as currently provided for in Vermont don't give all the legal rights and benefits associated with legal civil marriage, which include but are not limited to:
tax benefits
Survivors benefits
Social security benefits
Unemployment allowances
Medicare/medicaid allowances
Inheritance tax preferences
That well known bastion of progressive thought, the Church of England Pensions Fund, allows members to nominate any individual - be it spouse, partner, friend, next door neighbour, relative, whatever - to be the recipient of payments in the case of their death. Why can't the state do likewise?
I am very 'liberal' on gay unions - I think gay people can celebrate the sacrament of marriage, and churches should recognise this. And if the State insists on poking its nose into peoples' relationships, then I think that gay people should be allowed civil marriage. But I think that the current debate provides an ideal opportunity for posing the question of why it is necessary for 'marriage' to be a State-institution as well.
This is not about religious chauvinism - as you seem to think - I hang around in dodgy left-wing circles and know several atheist humanists who are very dubious about civil marriage, because they don't want their relationships validated by state bureaucracy.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Being by nature a liberal and by calling a conservative, if-it-ain't-Biblically-normative- you-can't-rationalize-to-it Evangelical Anglican ... or a schizophrene, I regard it as an abuse of power, unpluralistic, illogical for society (NOT the Church) NOT to accommodate the full, open, secular freedoms of homosexuals in legal, contractual, state protected next-of-kin unions including those that acquire children by IVF and/or adoption.
Double minded man that I am ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
And you need men to raise men for the same reasons that you wouldn't expect young people to become electricians by apprenticing them to a plumber. Why should this be a vexed issue? I wouldn't imagine being qualified to raise a girl without a lot of help from a woman, and I certainly hope that she doesn't similarly presume herself capable of raising a boy. Unfortunately, some do. I call that smothering, or imprisonment behind a wall of estrogen.
Many women have raised sons without smothering them.
The analogy between being a man or a woman and being a plumber or an electrician is rather weak. Being a man or a woman is hardly a trade one learns. My mother didn't teach me to become a woman; I'd be a woman no matter who raised me and how they did it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I'd be a woman no matter who raised me and how they did it.
Vive la difference!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
Those hedonistic homo perverts are pretending to be married! I think David Horsey has a point here.
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Here you go.
Well, I see the caricaturing-of-opponents has begun. That's certainly easier than debating.
--------------------
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
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Humour, of course, being incompatible with serious debate?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Kyralessa
quote:
Well, I see the caricaturing-of-opponents has begun.
Stereotypes are funny though, don't you get it? Oh, you aren't allowed to use them though. Sorry.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If the charicature fits....
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the charicature fits....
Shall I dig up some Gay Pride Parade photos?
I think you're capable of seeing the point, Mousethief, whether you want to or not.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I liked the last one, JL, but the one about shoving Will & Grace down America's throat thoroughly fails to move me. Shut off the damned TV and you won't have to watch it.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the charicature fits....
Shall I dig up some Gay Pride Parade photos?
I think you're capable of seeing the point, Mousethief, whether you want to or not.
Hosting
O, spare me. If you two want to wrangle about each other's stereotypes, please do so in the designated area.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Duo Seraphim:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the charicature fits....
Shall I dig up some Gay Pride Parade photos?
I think you're capable of seeing the point, Mousethief, whether you want to or not.
Hosting
O, spare me. If you two want to wrangle about each other's stereotypes, please do so in the designated area.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
Now what's that about, Duo? Who broke a commandment there?
--------------------
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
In all the many, many posts I have not seen any that address the possibility of same-sex divorces. I wonder how the laws would or would not apply? I also wonder why the divorce lawyers haven't happily endorsed same-sex marriage?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jésuitical Lad:
Not all cartoonists appear to favour recent events in America...
Intriguingly, though, none of those is at all funny. In fact, only the last one seems to be trying... the rest are just spluttering indignantly.
Whereas Bede's "hedonistic homo perverts" one is just priceless.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
President has this morning called for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. His reasons are that we've always done it that way and that gay marriage brings "uncertainty" and "confusion."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Bush said: quote:
After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their action has created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.
More details here.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Why is the solemn coming (ahem) together of two people of different sexes sacramental and that between people of the same sex not?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Ruth
quote:
His reasons are that we've always done it that way and that gay marriage brings "uncertainty" and "confusion."
That is an interesting paraphrase. I believe what he said is that marriage cannot be "severed from its moral and cultural roots". I'm pretty sure the confusion and uncertainty he's talking about are the effects of the court rulings in Massachussetts and the illegal actions in San Francisco in the legal and not cultural sense.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Bush sounded ridiculous. He called a special press conference and acted all serious, as if we were going to go invade someone again. And he didn't take questions.
That the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in San Francisco is causing uncertainty and confusion is not a good reason for amending the Constitution to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Sure, end the uncertainty - treat same-sex couples like everyone else. Equal protection under the law and the full faith and credit clause are enshrined in the Constitution for good reasons.
Women's second-class status was rooted in morality and culture too. But Wyoming decided to treat women like full-fledged human beings and let them vote, and the rest of the states just had to deal with that. It didn't invalidate any federal elections.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
In all the many, many posts I have not seen any that address the possibility of same-sex divorces. I wonder how the laws would or would not apply? ...
In Ontario, we have no residency requirements for marriage. But we do have a three-year residency requirement for divorce. This has been pointed out to the hundreds of couples from the US who've married in Ontario recently.
IANAL, but it seems to me that "divorce" applies to "marriage" - in Ontario, by creating same-sex marriage, ceteris paribus the courts created same-sex divorce.
This will get tested somewhere. I percieve a fork, as:
- Any jurisdiction that recognizes the marriage as valid can grant a divorce
- A jurisdiction that doesn't recognize the marriage would see no need for a divorce
However, moving from one jurisdiction to the other can create some interesting effects.
Consider, just for fun: Anne and Betty marry in Ontario. They move to Springfield, where same-sex marriage is not recognized. They break up, and Betty marries Cecil in Springfield.
If Betty visits Ontario, can she be arrested for bigamy?
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Whale arm leavin the countri, seein as they's makin homosexual marriage legal cuz next they's'll be makin it compulsory
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
President has this morning called for a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. His reasons are that we've always done it that way and that gay marriage brings "uncertainty" and "confusion."
And the press has to cover it.
It's his way of distracting the media from issues somewhat more embarrassing to himself.
[ 24. February 2004, 17:19: Message edited by: Alogon ]
--------------------
Patriarchy (n.): A belief in original sin unaccompanied by a belief in God.
Posts: 7808 | From: West Chester PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](http://www.geeklife.com/images/Feb04/opus_2004-02-01.jpg)
