|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Legalization of Gay Marriage
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
If the charicature fits....
Shall I dig up some Gay Pride Parade photos?
Oh, please, post away. The ones that I expect you would find would probably be quite fun to look at, and becoming more and more rare. We need to preserve our heritage for future generations.
I don't expect you would find the ranks upon ranks of normal people just wanting the same place at the table as everyone else. If you can't find those, send me a PM. I'll be happy to e-mail you some pictures from St. Louis's Gay Pride Parade a few years ago. Really, it was quite boring. That year the temperature was over 90 degrees F (32 degrees C) before the parade started with the humidity around 80-90%. Everyone stayed dressed, even if tank tops and shorts. The most popular floats were those that were tossing chilled bottled water at the crowds (Don't turn your back! Thud! OUCH!).
For that matter, the pictures I took last year at the Canadian Rockies International Rodeo were also pretty bland, although there were some humourous (Canadian spelling) drag events.
quote:
I think you're capable of seeing the point, Mousethief, whether you want to or not.
I trust saw David Horsey's point from the link I posted yesterday. Sometimes humor as art has that way of making its point better than pages of logic.
--------------------
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 Godfather Avatar:
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.
David Horsey has won two Pulitizer Awards for a reason.
As to JL's cartoons, who is forcing what upon whom? For example, I don't watch Will and Grace because--for me--it is a wasted half hour with one or two good jokes. I believe someone else has already posted the link to the APA regarding children being raised with two same-sex parents. There is only one time the US constitution has been amended to restrict rights (Prohibition), and that was later repealed.
Those cartoons aren't dealing with reality; David Horsey is dealing with reality.
--------------------
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
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.
I agree. Fortunately that wasn't the reason he gave.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 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? I also wonder why the divorce lawyers haven't happily endorsed same-sex marriage?
You must have missed my post near the bottom of page two. The Appeals Court for Eastern Washington has recently upheld a lower court decision that split property in a divorce-like manner.
My point on all of this is that same-sex marriage already exists, even if not defined in law. Since it is not enshrined in law, it leaves it to the courts to define equity and family law matters. I would prefer these matters be handled legislatively. This simplest way would be to bring the same-sex marriages into the institution that already exists: marriage.
We already have laws and case law on how to handle marriage. It will save us from having to re-inventing the wheel.
After all, if a separate institution (civil union) is going to be totally equal, it needs to exactly parallel marriage in language. Isn't it silly to do everything twice?
--------------------
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
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
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.
You raise an interesting thought, Henry. However, I have talked to people who have looked inot the matter and it is more complicated that that.
Legislation in Canada relating to who may marry is, by chance I am sure, phrased in terms of two "persons" who do this and that and so on. Legislation relating to divorce, however, probably also by chance, however, refers to "husband and wife" or "man and woman."
Leading to the situation that same sex couples can indeed get married in Canada, but once married cannot divorce. A truly evil person might see some irony in the fact that same sex couples, therefore, are far more than heterosexual couples, upholding marriage as an unbreable bond.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
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.
I agree. Fortunately that wasn't the reason he gave.
From the White House web site.
quote:
In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty. (emphasis added)
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Some while back, Dyfrig asked - quote:
Why is the solemn coming (ahem) together of two people of different sexes sacramental and that between people of the same sex not?
An interesting question, but alas not relevant to this thread, not being about civil marriage.
But I have a query which I think is sort-of related. Why exactly are we proposing to restrict this notion of marriage to people who have (or might have) sex together? Why are we excluding others? I'm thinking here of people such as my late aunt who devoted her life to caring for her invalid mother. They were together till parted by death. They certainly loved each other deeply. And you could I suppose say that society benefited thereby too.
So by what criteria shall we exclude people from the benefits that accrue from the state of marriage?
Ian
(PS - sorry, Dyfrig, I've asked the question the wrong way round I know - but sometimes it's instructive)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
That occured to me, too, Ian.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
Ian,
your aunty and her mum were already close family - why would they need to establish a family relationship?
My fiancé and I are not family but when we are married we will be. (officially speaking!)
L.
[ 25. February 2004, 00:11: 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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
And the press has to cover it.
It's his way of distracting the media from issues somewhat more embarrassing to himself.
I was in my car listening to NPR when all of a sudden they cut away to breaking news from CNN, and my heart about stopped. I thought we were sending troops into Haiti or something equally news-worthy.
Uncertainty and confusion are indeed not the only reasons Bush gave for supporting an amendment to the Constitution; the other reason is essentially, as I said, we've always done it that way. Since no one has seen fit to show me why my analogy is not relevant, I'll repeat it: by the same logic, women should not have been given the right to vote.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Since no one has seen fit to show me why my analogy is not relevant, I'll repeat it: by the same logic, women should not have been given the right to vote.
I've already done so several times, but since you've seen fit to ignore it, I'll do it again. Legalizing "gay marriage" would not give homosexuals the right to do something heterosexuals have always done (get married); rather it would give everyone the right to do something no one has ever had the right to do (marry someone of the same sex).
If you disagree, then please tell me (I've asked before) on what basis the law will determine whether someone is a heterosexual or a homosexual.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Are you saying Ruth that there's no difference between gender and sexual preference?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
But I have a query which I think is sort-of related. Why exactly are we proposing to restrict this notion of marriage to people who have (or might have) sex together? Why are we excluding others? I'm thinking here of people such as my late aunt who devoted her life to caring for her invalid mother. They were together till parted by death. They certainly loved each other deeply. And you could I suppose say that society benefited thereby too. [/QB]
Well, Ian, as was already said here, your aunt and your Gran were already related, and family creates certain rights/duties and things at law (to simplify the point.) But your argument reminds me of something I've been harking back to in my mind throughout this whole (inter)national debate - namely, the last Bush administration and how Dan Quayle spouted off that the television show "Murphy Brown" was detrimental to familly values as it showed a woman having a baby while unwed.
The press had a field day (ol' Dan was never the smartest turnip in the crop anyway) but the *writers* of the show took advantage of a great opportunity for the season opener. First they showed poor old Murphy sitting there, hormonal and pregnant and freaking out that Dan Quayle of all people saw fit to pass judgement on her. Then she got her journalistic skills together and responded with a show that provided visual examples of all kinds of families. Including grandmothers raising kids as the parents were incarcerated under Republican drug sentencing laws. Siblings caring for each other, and caring for younger siblings. Aunts and grandmothers. And, as I seem to recall - homosexuals adopting, and homosexuals just living together without being able to get married. The net effect was to tell Dan Quayle to stick it where the sun don't shine and a very positive message was made about where real family lies. It often lies in who we choose to be with, whether sexually or not. I've often said that I could marry my best friend and live with him for the rest of my life, and it is true - we're perfect together (and opposite genders, so it is currently permissible anywhere we want to go). But I could never have sex with him - it would be just too, too, too, well I can't think of a word. But if I could think of a word it would be too that word. And yet we could still marry even if we never even kissed, so long as we stood up in public and promised to love, honor and cherish each other. Heck, we could EVEN do it in church/temple/mosque if we wanted. I'd never have to see his bits and versa vice. So I refuse to understand why the fact that his bits are different to mine would be a logical barrier to our getting married if we wanted to. He's still my family.
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
Legalizing "gay marriage" would not give homosexuals the right to do something heterosexuals have always done (get married); rather it would give everyone the right to do something no one has ever had the right to do (marry someone of the same sex).
Legalizing gay marriage would give homosexuals the right to do what heterosexuals do: marry someone they might want to have sex with.
quote:
If you disagree, then please tell me (I've asked before) on what basis the law will determine whether someone is a heterosexual or a homosexual.
The law doesn't need to inquire into or define people's sexual orientation or sexual behavior. The law can just say two adults can get married and leave it at that.
Of course there's a difference between gender - by which I take it you actually mean "sex" - and sexual preference or orientation. But as far as I can tell, the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose. It's why the analogy with civil rights works, too. Today a friend of mine joked that if Bush gets his way she's going to be just two-thirds of a person.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Go Anne Go:
...your argument reminds me of something I've been harking back to in my mind throughout this whole (inter)national debate - namely, the last Bush administration and how Dan Quayle spouted off that the television show "Murphy Brown" was detrimental to familly values as it showed a woman having a baby while unwed.
Go Anne Go, a little light reading for you.
--------------------
In Orthodoxy, a child is considered an icon of the parents' love for each other.
I'm just glad all my other icons don't cry, crap, and spit up this much.
Posts: 1597 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Ruth
quote:
But as far as I can tell, the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose. It's why the analogy with civil rights works, too.
So we can say absolutely and without a doubt that sexual preference is not a choice. Is that correct? Also if the analogy with women's rights and racial equality is correct, one would expect that women and minorities will be overwhelmingly in favor of redefining marriage. Is that the case?
[ 25. February 2004, 02:05: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Also if the analogy with women's rights and racial equality is correct, one would expect that women and minorities will be overwhelmingly in favor of redefining marriage.
I don't see how that follows. One can be discriminated against and still be prejudiced against others. Cf. Israel-and-Palestine.
--------------------
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
Interesting. So then somebody who is a woman, or a minority, or a supporter of equal rights for those groups, but doesn't support extending marriage to two people of the same gender is essentially a hypocrite. Right?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I refuse to play that game. Find somebody else, Alt Wally.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
So then somebody who is a woman, or a minority, or a supporter of equal rights for those groups, but doesn't support extending marriage to two people of the same gender is essentially a hypocrite. Right?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
As to the issue of choice: most people don't choose their sexual orientation, and most people don't choose their gender. Some people do feel that they could go either way, sexually, and some intersexual people are faced with having to choose a gender.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kyralessa
Shipmate
# 4568
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Legalizing gay marriage would give homosexuals the right to do what heterosexuals do: marry someone they might want to have sex with.
Now there's a dangerous path to go down if I ever saw one. But we'll leave that alone and move on to...
quote:
The law doesn't need to inquire into or define people's sexual orientation or sexual behavior. The law can just say two adults can get married and leave it at that.
Of course there's a difference between gender - by which I take it you actually mean "sex" - and sexual preference or orientation. But as far as I can tell, the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose. It's why the analogy with civil rights works, too. Today a friend of mine joked that if Bush gets his way she's going to be just two-thirds of a person.
The law certainly does need to delve into sexual orientation if the assertion here is that people are being discriminated against on the basis of it. Let's take blacks, for instance; if a person discriminates against some people, and not against others, and all the people he discriminates against just happen to be black, then it's pretty easy to conclude that he discriminates against blacks.
But homosexuals? The thing is, while certainly there are borderline cases, generally it's pretty easy to tell the shade of someone's skin. But there's no way to tell someone's sexual orientation. Even who someone sleeps with doesn't prove anything; ask Bishop Gene. The only way to know someone's sexual orientation for certain is for that person to tell you. Which means absolutely anyone can claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, since all we have to determine that they're of a particular orientation is their word.
In 99% of cases, perhaps, we can tell that someone is black, or a woman, or disabled, or in whatever minority group; there are objective standards for belonging for a group, and the edge cases don't invalidate the whole. But belonging to the minority of homosexuals is 100% subjective; there's no way for the law to determine whether someone is or is not a homosexual, as self-identification is the only real test. So how then are homosexuals going to prove discrimination? How can you make laws to protect a group if you have no way to tell who's in the group and who isn't?
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
The thing is, while certainly there are borderline cases, generally it's pretty easy to tell the shade of someone's skin. <snip> In 99% of cases, perhaps, we can tell that someone is black, or a woman, or disabled, or in whatever minority group; there are objective standards for belonging for a group, and the edge cases don't invalidate the whole. But belonging to the minority of homosexuals is 100% subjective; there's no way for the law to determine whether someone is or is not a homosexual, as self-identification is the only real test.
Two points. Maybe three.
First, the ADA protects people who have a disabling condition, or who are regarded as having a disabling condition. They don't actually have to be disabled for the law to protect them -- if you think they're disabled, they're protected under the ADA. I think it would be simple to protect the rights of gays and lesbians similarly -- you don't have to have pictures of them in the act (which wouldn't prove anything anyway), just evidence as to how they are regarded.
Second, I believe that, under current US law, race (except for Native American) is determined solely by self-identification. The shade of your skin is irrelevant. Your ancestry is irrelevant. What you consider yourself to be is all that matters. It seems obvious that this would be equally true with respect to sexual orientation (and perhaps even more true for that than for race/ethnicity).
Third, and somewhat tangential, if you can determine, 99% of the time, that someone is disabled, please start offering your services as a consultant to parents of children with disabilities. In my experience, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove that a child is disabled for educational purposes.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re the law sorting out who's gay:
Totally unnecessary. TTBOMK, the law doesn't check whether both people in a m/f marriage are straight. A man and woman want to get married, they fulfill whatever blood tests, etc. that are required, and they get married.
Why should it be any different for gays? 2 consenting adults want to get married, they fulfill the requirements, and they get married.
BTW, I don't know what actual vows are being used here in SF--but the civil servant who's officiating pronounces the couple "partners for life". So how is that qualitatively different from a straight marriage? Some of the couples have been together for *decades*--the very first couple was 2 women who've been together for *50 yrs*. How many straight marriages last even a quarter of that?
As to "marriages" for non-sexual couples who are sharing their lives (relatives, friends, etc.):
IIRC, the local domestic partnership laws permit that--primarily to facilitate getting insurance, etc.
This page at SFGate.com has info on the situation here. And if you go the the right-hand navigation bar, down the page, there are links to a wedding photo album and many articles. The mayor's even invited the governor to come see a wedding! ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Ruth, I guess I'm still having trouble seeing this as a civil rights issue, because you say
quote:
the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose.
and then you say
quote:
As to the issue of choice: most people don't choose their sexual orientation, and most people don't choose their gender.
So it seems not be a choice, except in the case of when it is.
You can also roll your eyes at me, but I was following the logic of your argument. If this is a civil rights issue, what would you say about someone who supports equal rights for women and minorities but doesn't view same gender marriage as a civil rights issue?
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Ruth, I guess I'm still having trouble seeing this as a civil rights issue, because you say
quote:
the analogy works because women were and gays and lesbians are discriminated against on the basis of something they didn't choose.
and then you say
quote:
As to the issue of choice: most people don't choose their sexual orientation, and most people don't choose their gender.
So it seems not be a choice, except in the case of when it is.
Yes. I hope it's not a problem that I gave a little further thought to what I was saying and came up with exceptions. The vast majority of people don't choose their gender, but some do. Most people feel their sexual orientation is not something they had a choice about, but a few do, or in the case of bisexual people, can choose to follow through on their attraction to one sex and not the other, if they like. The exceptions don't really make much difference, though, to the people who aren't exceptions.
And this extends to race as well, at least in the US: you can look at most people in the US and place them in one of our artificial racial categories on the basis of what they look like. The exceptions would be the people who passed.
Comparisons between how we categorize sexual orientation, gender/sex, and race do not show that these categories function in exactly the same ways - I'm not trying to say that. What I'm saying is in general we don't have choices about these things. I'm straight, female, and white, and I didn't choose to be straight any more than I chose to be female or white.
People here keep saying gays have been able to get married all along, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. The county clerk's office doesn't require proof of being straight to issue a marriage license, as Golden Key points out, and it doesn't really need to require proof that the two people are differently sexed, either.
This is not about writing a law to protect the rights in general of gay people; it doesn't need to be written with the language of protecting a minority. So there's no need to determine who fits the definition of the minority. The law just needs to say any two consenting adults may marry. Period.
quote:
You can also roll your eyes at me, but I was following the logic of your argument. If this is a civil rights issue, what would you say about someone who supports equal rights for women and minorities but doesn't view same gender marriage as a civil rights issue?
They're blind.
I'm still waiting to see the harm caused by same-sex marriage. The county clerk not only doesn't ask if you're straight when you get married, it also doesn't ask if you're going to be a good parent.
All the discussion about the problems of same-sex couples raising children is baloney. Just because a boy is raised in a traditional two-parent home with a mother and a father doesn't mean that the father is actually emotionally present and actively participating in the rearing of his son. Therapist's offices are full of men who are trying to work through the emotional effects of having had emotionally absent fathers. Some of them might have been much better off being raised by two mothers who provided father figures in the persons of their brothers or male friends.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Ruth
quote:
Most people feel their sexual orientation is not something they had a choice about, but a few do, or in the case of bisexual people, can choose to follow through on their attraction to one sex and not the other, if they like.
So it's some of both, how do we define this as a civil rights issue then? Could a bisexual person argue they are having their civil rights being infringed on by having to choose?
quote:
The law just needs to say any two consenting adults may marry. Period.
So is this a matter of civil rights or protection of individual freedoms?
quote:
They're blind.
So any woman or member of a minority group who doesn't agree with redefiniing marriage is blind?
quote:
All the discussion about the problems of same-sex couples raising children is baloney.
That's interesting. I thought like the idea of being genetically predisposed to being gay, this was an area of much debate and conflicting data. I think if you change the definition of marriage though, instead of setting up some alternate set of rights for consenting adults, you've basically ended the debate about children.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leonato
Shipmate
# 5124
|
Posted
quote:
In 99% of cases, perhaps, we can tell that someone is black, or a woman, or disabled, or in whatever minority group
You're on dangerous ground here. I am disabled, but if you met me you probably wouldn't notice. I still have to face, and fight against, discrimination.
quote:
So how then are homosexuals going to prove discrimination? How can you make laws to protect a group if you have no way to tell who's in the group and who isn't?
You do not have to prove you are homosexual to prove discrimination, you don't even have to be gay. The discrimination occurs when a person or organisation discriminates against you on grounds of what they believe you sexuality to be, for whatever reason.
So why is opposing gay marriage not discrimination? Why is it acceptable to marry (or "civilly unite with") someone of the opposite sex, but not the same sex? Bush's justification seems to be "well it's always been that way", so RuthW's analogy with women voting is valid.
quote:
So we can say absolutely and without a doubt that sexual preference is not a choice. Is that correct?
What evidence is there that sexuality is a choice? Hands up anyone reading this who chose their sexual orientation
--------------------
leonato... Much Ado
Posts: 892 | From: Stage left | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Me:
Most people feel their sexual orientation is not something they had a choice about, but a few do, or in the case of bisexual people, can choose to follow through on their attraction to one sex and not the other, if they like.
quote:
Alt Wally:
So it's some of both, how do we define this as a civil rights issue then? Could a bisexual person argue they are having their civil rights being infringed on by having to choose?
Why are the definitions even important? Why can't we just say two people can get married and leave it at that?
quote:
Me: The law just needs to say any two consenting adults may marry. Period.
quote:
Alt Wally:
So is this a matter of civil rights or protection of individual freedoms?
What's the difference?
quote:
So any woman or member of a minority group who doesn't agree with redefiniing marriage is blind?
Why are you so insistent about this? Certainly being a member of one minority group doesn't prevent one from having prejudices against another. There are strong prejudices against gay people among African Americans and Latinos. Why people will fight for and enjoy freedoms for themselves that they don't want to see extended to other people I don't know.
quote:
Me: All the discussion about the problems of same-sex couples raising children is baloney.
quote:
Alt Wally:
That's interesting. I thought like the idea of being genetically predisposed to being gay, this was an area of much debate and conflicting data. I think if you change the definition of marriage though, instead of setting up some alternate set of rights for consenting adults, you've basically ended the debate about children.
The debate about children is over anyway - gay men can adopt children, and lesbian couples of course can have children.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alogon
Cabin boy emeritus
# 5513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
But there's no way to tell someone's sexual orientation. Even who someone sleeps with doesn't prove anything; ask Bishop Gene. The only way to know someone's sexual orientation for certain is for that person to tell you. Which means absolutely anyone can claim discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, since all we have to determine that they're of a particular orientation is their word.
And what's wrong with believing what people tell you? Are you proposing that we are, or ever could be, awash in citizens falsely claiming to be gay simply for the pleasure of complaining about being discriminated against, or the privilege of victim status?
In any case, the best way to prevent claims of discrimination is to remove the grounds for them.
It looks to me as though you've concocted a pseudo-problem.
--------------------
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
Ruth
quote:
Why are the definitions even important? Why can't we just say two people can get married and leave it at that?
Because there seem to be two arguments going on simultaneously. One is that gay people don't make a choice, they are the way they are so denying marriage to them is an infringement of their civil rights. Another argument going on at the same time is that it's ultimately a matter of choice, it doesn't matter if one is gay or not, and that it violates ones personal freedom to be limited to only being able to be married to someone of the opposite sex.
If it's about the civil rights of gay people, I think there are some hard questions to answer. If it's about the law not making an ambigious distinction between who can get married to who;I can't see how the law won't be further challenged by others, namely polygamists, if it is altered.
quote:
The debate about children is over anyway - gay men can adopt children, and lesbian couples of course can have children.
I wasn't aware this was decided. I know a woman can have a baby, but I didn't know her female partner could legally claim parenthood. I also wasn't aware that adoption by gay couples is legal in every state.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eanswyth
Ship's raven
# 3363
|
Posted
Info note: One of my co-workers was on CNN this weekend. She adopted the son her partner gave birth to so they are now both legally his mothers.
Posts: 1323 | From: San Diego | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Ruth
quote:
Why are the definitions even important? Why can't we just say two people can get married and leave it at that?
Because there seem to be two arguments going on simultaneously. One is that gay people don't make a choice, they are the way they are so denying marriage to them is an infringement of their civil rights. Another argument going on at the same time is that it's ultimately a matter of choice, it doesn't matter if one is gay or not, and that it violates ones personal freedom to be limited to only being able to be married to someone of the opposite sex. [emphasis mine]
Who has been bringing up that other argument?
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
There seem to be some conflicting lines of argument here which I don't want to jump into, so I'll bide my time. But I would like to come back to a couple of points (if feasible) in due course. Meanwhile thanks Louise & GoAnneGo for responding to my Q.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
of course you should remember that there was marriage before there were any laws about marriage..the issue here is one of state law but there may be no particular reason why the state should recognise even heterosexual marriage never mind homosexual relationships.
For quite a few millenia the only kind of couple relationship that had strong religious and cultural sanction and universal approval was between a man and a woman. By the passage of time this relationship was called 'marriage' or at least had its own specific 'name' and concept.
Then the state (or previously the ecclesiatical authorities) came along and decided to put in place various legal requirments for heterosexual relations to be regularised and granted certain privileges by slow and steady accretion. Every privilege carried obligations too [the obligations that everyone forgets in the scrabble for legal rights]
Now, I believe that marriage by definition must have a man and woman in sexual relationship in the same way that a triange by definition has to have three sides. One could redefine the word triangle to mean something more inclusive of all shapes, but I bet you would still need a special word for those 3-sidey objects. Therefore to my mind, no change in the law could make any difference to the underlying reality: Gay "marriage" is in my view impossible by definition like four sided triangles or square circles.
There seems a legal need for civil unions for homosexual couples. I say seems, because I doubt whether our society needs any kind of marriage law or legal marriage recognition at all for anyone(see below) However lets be clear, the usurpation of the term 'marriage' is not about legal need which is completely satisfied by the proposals for civil unions, but about trying to change our cultural perceptions of gay people. However the route chosen is to create an egalitarian newspeak where any difference is ignored. Unfortunately difference there will always be and we have to live with it. The usurpation of the marriage term is laudable in motive, but based on faulty logic: as if discarding separate terms for apples and oranges, will then make the signfied objects conceptually equivalent. it won't.
I do though suspect there are strong reasons why any stable, close to nature, society will in the long term tend to postively discriminate and give extra privileges and rights to monogamous stable heterosexual realtionships over all other kinds of relations. And i think this probably comes down to some forgotten biological imperative of reproduction and cultural transmission ...but we are back in evolutionary sociology and dead horses territory so I will say no more on that point.!).
Anyhow, for various reasons I see no wrongful discrimination with committed heterosexual relations being accorded a special privilege and support i.e. if there is discrimination it is objectively justifiable; however if I lose that argument and marriage privileges (with their onerous obligations too) are still seen as discrimination against gays then it is better that the law recognises no one particular kind or standard of relationship i.e lets have no marriage law at all. In any event since most of us change our partners only slightly less often that we change accommodation or motor vehicles, and no one form of relationship is the 'norm' today then the 'no law' option will gradually becomes the only way forward. So maybe lets work for the abolition of every marriage law altogether and let everyone contract in personal partnership with whoever they want on whatever terms they want without any state intervention. An idea endorsed by none other than Peter Tatchell, the gay millitant who's critique of the very concept of gay marriage is excellent and enlightening
[sorry forgot the ULR link details]
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
There are without question states where homosexuals are not allowed to adopt, although as pointed out above, the only way to know is to ask so I guess one could just lie about it if asked, although maybe wanting to adopt a baby with another person of the same gender who you happen to be living with, who you happen to be campaigning to marry could maybe tip people off.
But I digress..............
Florida very prominently will not allow gays to adopt. Other states are more subtle.
Btw, Kryalessa, your light reading was an article about how children of single parent families suffered higher rates of poverty. Which rather strengthens the argument that familly units which choose to be together due to love, whether sexual or not, should be together, no?
Adoption: we loved you, and we wanted to provide love and care for you, so we adopted you. And we fought a lot of obstacles to do it.
Marriage: we loved each other, and wanted to provide love and care for each other, so we got married. And we fought a lot of obstacles to do it.
As for asking and appearances, even with something like race, it needed to be defined and of course you couldn't always tell by looking - go read "The Human Stain" for great fiction on a very real topic. (The movie, not so great though, but case in point: black man played by Anthony Hopkins.) If you were 1/8 black, you were black, no matter how white you looked.
And in fact, you still can't tell a lot of things by looking. My friend Alex was just around. Alex is a) Canadian, b) half -Korean, c) a Southerner (as in America, Gone with teh Wind and all that)band by heritage both Jewish *and* a direct descendant of a Taoist immortal. But you can't tell ANY of those things by looking at him. Until he opens his mouth to speak and the Canadian accent comes out, you'd never even suspect. You'd have to ask..............
--------------------
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
there seem to be two arguments going on simultaneously. One is that gay people don't make a choice, they are the way they are so denying marriage to them is an infringement of their civil rights. Another argument going on at the same time is that it's ultimately a matter of choice, it doesn't matter if one is gay or not, and that it violates ones personal freedom to be limited to only being able to be married to someone of the opposite sex.
I honestly don't know the difference between a personal freedom and a civil right. Isn't it my civil right to have certain personal freedoms?
And I don't have a problem with there being two arguments. I find them both valid, and I don't see a conflict between them. Being gay is not in general a matter of personal choice, but it really shouldn't matter whether someone is gay or not. (Being black is in general not a matter of personal choice, but it shouldn't matter. It all too often does, as it all too often matters that someone is gay, but it shouldn't. The law should just say two people can get married and leave it at that.
quote:
If it's about the civil rights of gay people, I think there are some hard questions to answer.
Such as?
quote:
If it's about the law not making an ambigious distinction between who can get married to who;I can't see how the law won't be further challenged by others, namely polygamists, if it is altered.
Why do you see this as a slippery slope? And what if it were challenged by polygamists? I wouldn't have a problem with it.
The way I see this, marriage under the law is a contract. The law currently places certain restrictions upon who is allowed to enter into that particular kind of contract, some of which the government has no business doing. The state has no demostrated interest in limiting marriage to a man and a woman, so it shouldn't do so.
quote:
Me:
The debate about children is over anyway - gay men can adopt children, and lesbian couples of course can have children.
quote:
Alt Wally:
I wasn't aware this was decided. I know a woman can have a baby, but I didn't know her female partner could legally claim parenthood. I also wasn't aware that adoption by gay couples is legal in every state.
Sorry, I was thinking just for California - didn't give any thought to what other states do.
But consider this: a gay couple can legally adopt children in California, and then they can move to another state. Because of the full faith and credit clause, those kids still have two mothers or two fathers. The idiotic Defense of Marriage Act Clinton signed keeps that from being true of gay marriage, which makes absolutely no sense at all, IMO.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
Ruth
quote:
I honestly don't know the difference between a personal freedom and a civil right. Isn't it my civil right to have certain personal freedoms?
The difference to me, and maybe just to me, is that I've heard one argument that gays are specifically being discriminated against with parallels to the civil rights era of the 60's and womens suffrage; and another that the government is just drawing an arbitrary line and limiting our choice in who we can choose to marry. Maybe a subtle distinction, but they seem different to me. The hard questions are if it is specifically about discrimination against gay people how do we identify who is being discriminated against and is it a matter of choice or genetic determination.
I probably can't say much else except that I've been praying about this and I hope a compromise can be found that will be acceptable to most people. I don't favor amending the constitution, and I also don't favor changing the definition of marriage itself. I think I come pretty close to agreeing what I heard John Kerry say on the matter.
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Me:
I honestly don't know the difference between a personal freedom and a civil right. Isn't it my civil right to have certain personal freedoms?
quote:
The difference to me, and maybe just to me, is that I've heard one argument that gays are specifically being discriminated against with parallels to the civil rights era of the 60's and womens suffrage; and another that the government is just drawing an arbitrary line and limiting our choice in who we can choose to marry.
I guess I don't see a distinction. The government is drawing an arbitrary line and on the basis of that discriminating against people who fall on the wrong side of it.
quote:
The hard questions are if it is specifically about discrimination against gay people how do we identify who is being discriminated against and is it a matter of choice or genetic determination.
And I don't see this as a problem. If the law says is silent on the matter of the sex of the people getting married, no identification of who is being discriminated against is required. This needn't be like affirmative action, where you have to prove you fall into a particular category. This should just be "any two consenting adults can get married" - no need to identify anyone.
quote:
I probably can't say much else except that I've been praying about this and I hope a compromise can be found that will be acceptable to most people. I don't favor amending the constitution, and I also don't favor changing the definition of marriage itself. I think I come pretty close to agreeing what I heard John Kerry say on the matter.
IIRC, Kerry wants what essentially amounts to civil union for gays, but doesn't want to call it marriage. To me this is another distinction without a difference. But for the moment I'd be pleased if gays and lesbians were afford all the legal protections of marriage under another title such as "civil union."
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
kyralessa:
quote:
. Legalizing "gay marriage" would not give homosexuals the right to do something heterosexuals have always done (get married); rather it would give everyone the right to do something no one has ever had the right to do (marry someone of the same sex).
and legalizing inter racial marriage did not give blacks the right to do something they had always had, the right to marry, it gave them the right to do something they had never had before, the right to marry a white person. the difference?
--------------------
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
|
|
J. J. Ramsey
Shipmate
# 1174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fatprophet:
Now, I believe that marriage by definition must have a man and woman in sexual relationship in the same way that a triange by definition has to have three sides.
fatprophet, if what you said were true, then the whole debate about gay marriage would either
- be mired in semantic confusion about what consistuted "gay marriage," or
- not exist at all, because our idea of marriage would be so incompatible with our ideas of homosexuality that no one, not even a gay, would even get around to proposing "gay marriage."
quote:
Gay "marriage" is in my view impossible by definition like four sided triangles or square circles.
Except we cannot imagine what either a four sided triangle or a square circle would look like, but we can imagine what a gay marriage would look like (although we might not really wish to imagine certain details ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) ). If "gay marriage" were truly logically contradictory like "square circle," there is no way that we could have a concept of it in our heads.
We need to put this "gay marriage redefines marriage" canard to rest. It's just sloppy thinking.
--------------------
I am a rationalist. Unfortunately, this doesn't actually make me rational.
Posts: 1490 | From: Tallmadge, OH | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
You have to register to see it (make something up!) but there's an interesting article in the LA Times today about how gay Republicans are up in arms about Bush advocating amending the Constitution. He may have overplayed his hand.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
gay Republicans are up in arms
Both of them?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Hah!
From the article: "In exit polls from the 2000 election, about 4 million Americans identified themselves as gay or lesbian; of those, about a quarter said they voted for Bush."
1 million gays switching their votes to the Democratic party would swing the election, wouldn't it?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Just 'cos they voted for Bush in 2000 doesn't mean they're Republicans, does it?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Andrew Sullivan (gay Christian conservative) is leading the charge. Scroll down to this:
quote:
WAR IS DECLARED: The president launched a war today against the civil rights of gay citizens and their families. And just as importantly, he launched a war to defile the most sacred document in the land.
Sounds serious--how much the Republicans actually care, I don't know.
Timothy
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
There is actually a formal organization entitled the "Log Cabin Republicans" for homosexual Republicans (the joke is that all that discretionary income makes them fiscal conservatives). They play a bigger role than many people perceive. And they're not thrilled about Bush's "lets amend the Constitution" electioneering. There's a lot of pressure on Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, to come out and say something against this sort of thing. You think she would - just to get Halliburton off the front pages for Daddy!
Mind you, Kerry's annouced today that he's IN FAVOR of the Massachusetts State Constitution being amended to ban gay marriage, contingent on there being same sex civil unions (which of course the court has said are unacceptable). I believe this is called trying to have one's cake and eat it too. Then again, if you give the same rights and call it civil unions, the majority are for it. Give the same rights and call it marriage, opionion polls are against it. Quite exactly how one's marriage is threatened by the civilly and in some cases religiously united lesbians and/or gays down the street is something I haven't figured out yet.
--------------------
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
|
|
CorgiGreta
Shipmate
# 443
|
Posted
Anne,
I think that there is some wiggle room in the recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The remedy the Court proposes is an alteration of the definition of marriage, but the rationale for the ruling is a rectification of denial of "benefits, protections and obligations" of marriage to same gender couples.
A well-crafted domestic partnership law should be able to provide marital benefits, protections, and obligations to gays and lesbians while permitting a political compromise in which a semantic distinction between marriage and domestic partnership is retained.
Greta
Posts: 3677 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Go Anne Go
Amazonian Wonder
# 3519
|
Posted
So in that case, call everything which isn't a church wedding sacrament a civil union. Which I believe is currently being proposed in Canadia. The rights and benefits come from the civil union, whether you are same sex or different, and the churches can marry or refuse you as they see fit.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
