Thread: Dead Horses: A new Christian line on gay marriage Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001346
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on
:
I saw this report today on one of the Australian rugby players at Rugby World Cup. He has clearly thought deeply about subjects other than rugby and beer.
In particular,
"I don't see what the big deal is with the whole gay marriage debate in Australia," Pocock told the New Zealand Herald last week.
"Being brought up in a Christian home and still identifying as Christian, I get pretty annoyed with the Christian lobbies around the world who say gay marriage destroys families and all that kind of rubbish.
"They claim to follow someone who always stood up for the oppressed and marginalised.
"I guess it is a fear of the unknown - if you talk to someone who doesn't like gay people you can almost guarantee that they don't know too many.
"These are the prejudices that you have to challenge and break down. Emma [his partner] and I decided not to get legally married until our gay friends could do the same."
What do shipmates think of this line?
(Those who only want to discuss his prowess at rugby compared to his New Zealand rival Richie McCaw can post on the rugby thread on the Circus.)
[ 08. April 2017, 01:19: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Good for him. And I hope it encourages more people in the media to speak up. However I think your thread title is a little unfair. I know many Christians who support gay rights so to call this a “new Christian line” suggests that the majority of Christians are against them.
Having said that I'm in the UK so I'm blessed by living in a nation more sensible than most when it comes to this issue.
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
It's an appealing argument rooted, I suspect, as much in his personal desire to be liked and thought well of as in his personal sense of social justice and equality.
It isn't rooted in a theology of marriage though, so it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about what marriage is and how marriage is understood from a biblical perpective.
Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on
:
And it's certainly not new.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
It's an appealing argument rooted, I suspect, as much in his personal desire to be liked and thought well of as in his personal sense of social justice and equality.
That's quite a judgement to make, Daron. I've never heard of the guy, but I'm inclined to accept his rationale at face value. Are they not, as expressed, considerations which are appropriate for any Christian? Even if you disagree, it is a perfectly legitimate position to hold that the underlying, essential element in the "theology of marriage" as you put it, is a theology of faithfulness, rather than one of gender.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
There's nothing new about it IMO.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
I've long thought the church needs to realign it's thinking back to those medieval concepts of chastity and fidelity. I'm pretty tired of hearing christians lambasting gay and lesbian couples who are faithful and contented and then when they hear about a marriage break up of a heterosexual couple due to infidelity they fall oddly silent - I'm afraid it points to only one thing....
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
It's not new, but it's coming from an interesting place (i.e. not the clergy!) which may make people sit up and listen.
The idea of him not getting married till gay marriage became legal is interesting, though.
[ 14. October 2011, 08:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Daron (# 16507) on
:
It would be highly unusual of someone famous to say something that they knew would decrease their popularity. It's a popular argument couched in popular terms founded on popular categories. It's PR.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
It's not new, but it's coming from an interesting place (i.e. not the clergy!) which may make people sit up and listen.
The idea of him not getting married till gay marriage became legal is interesting, though.
Wasn't that Brangelina's line? Again, hardly original.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
It's a popular argument couched in popular terms founded on popular categories. It's PR.
Are we sure about that? I don't know how conservative or progressive is the culture he's coming from. Can anyone shed any light on that?
[ 14. October 2011, 09:38: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
It would be highly unusual of someone famous to say something that they knew would decrease their popularity. It's a popular argument couched in popular terms founded on popular categories. It's PR.
Well, you think what you think. I don't see that an appeal to the example of our Lord is the normal gambit of a celebrity attention whore, nor do I see such an appeal as one couched in popular terms. Plus, if you care to read the link or google the man, I think that he could reasonably have been said to have paid his dues.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
It's an appealing argument rooted, I suspect, as much in his personal desire to be liked and thought well of as in his personal sense of social justice and equality.
It isn't rooted in a theology of marriage though, so it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about what marriage is and how marriage is understood from a biblical perpective.
Marriage from a biblical perspective? The biblical perspective that says a rape victim has to marry her rapist? The biblical perspective with polygamy and concubines? The biblical perspective saying that a widow must marry her deceased husband's brother if there's no heir? The biblical perspective that allows men to force marriages on prisoners of war?
Too damn right it isn't based on a biblical perspective. We've moved on since then. So, whether or not you want to admit it, have you.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Whether the story represents anything particularly new or not, I think this thread belongs in Dead Horses.
Reasoning as follows. The subject of the thread appears not to be the theology of marriage, which would be proper to Purg, but Christian understanding of gay marriage, which fits into the "any aspects of homosexuality" guideline for Dead Horse topics.
See guidelines.
So I'm sending it to the appropriate forum.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
It's an appealing argument rooted, I suspect, as much in his personal desire to be liked and thought well of as in his personal sense of social justice and equality.
It isn't rooted in a theology of marriage though, so it doesn't actually say anything meaningful about what marriage is and how marriage is understood from a biblical perpective.
Marriage from a biblical perspective? The biblical perspective that says a rape victim has to marry her rapist? The biblical perspective with polygamy and concubines? The biblical perspective saying that a widow must marry her deceased husband's brother if there's no heir? The biblical perspective that allows men to force marriages on prisoners of war?
Too damn right it isn't based on a biblical perspective. We've moved on since then. So, whether or not you want to admit it, have you.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I think it's time that the Church comes to terms with a "theology of marriage" that is often rooted in archaic ideas like property rights/management (women being the property), obsession with female chastity (spoiled/stolen property), and the like.
And even when Paul talks about spouses loving/respecting one another...I don't think he shares the modern assumption that friendship, companionship and an equal life partnership are bases of marriage. I think in his mind marriage was a kind of temporary concession to the human urge to procreate and the wider culture that was best avoided but, if it couldn't be, could be managed, for lack of a better term, in a way that was spiritually and practically non-harmful/beneficial for both parties until "the coming of the Lord" when presumably we'd all be over that sort of thing.
I don't know about the rest of you, but that's not exactly my idea of a working "theology of marriage" for our times.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
It would be highly unusual of someone famous to say something that they knew would decrease their popularity. It's a popular argument couched in popular terms founded on popular categories. It's PR.
So the way for even a sports star to be popular with fans is to say gay-friendly things. It's not difficult to remember times when it would be just the opposite. I see no reason to doubt that you are correct, but I also see no reason to doubt that he means what he says. Not only are such statements as his popular, but so obviously popular that you can doubt their sincerity? How refreshing.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
What he said is good inasmuch as it is about time the laity speak up for their beliefs instead of the public thinking that all Christians are homophobes because of statements out out by bishops and popes.
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
If gay marriage is seen as legal, what do we now say about a father marrying his daughter, mother marrying her son and sisters marrying brothers? Surely equality will demand that these are also acceptable. I'm not advocating any of these, but pointing out how demands can move into ridiculous and unacceptable situations. At some point we need to say enough is enough!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
If gay marriage is seen as legal, what do we now say about a father marrying his daughter, mother marrying her son and sisters marrying brothers? Surely equality will demand that these are also acceptable. I'm not advocating any of these, but pointing out how demands can move into ridiculous and unacceptable situations. At some point we need to say enough is enough!
I'm not sure what you are saying here bib?
I think that maybe you have looked at two subjects you personally find icky and just compared them at a simple, instinctual level.
Are you speaking about marriage or sex?
How can homosexual marriage be compared to incest?
What about sex between brothers?
Why are you comparing incest with homosexuality? They are completely different things imo. Incest itself is a fascinating subject and would merit a thread of its own - but it is by no means a simple or straightforward subject.
<edited for dodgy spelling>
[ 16. October 2011, 08:35: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by bib (# 13074) on
:
What I am trying to put forward is that changing the law to allow relationships that have previously been proscribed is to open the floodgates to anyone who wants to get on the bandwagon and push for equal rights to legalise relationships that society has always regarded as unacceptable. Gay relationships may not cause the same problems, but relationships that could be incestuous or involve minors are certainly unacceptable INMO. I fear that to slacken the laws will allow people to demand whatever they want under the guise of human rights.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Laws on who people can/can't marry have been changed many times in history - categories where there has been significant fluctuation over the past two thousand years have included godparents, cousins, relations of deceased marriage partners, relations of divorced marriage partners, race, religion and age, just to name some of the changes.
The canonical ages for Christian marriage were 12 for girls and 14 for boys for hundreds of years - 'traditional' Christian marriage used to have no problem with what we'd now regard as child abuse. It was rejecting long standing religious traditions about marriage which allowed that option for legal sex by adults with children to be closed.
[Can one of our RC canon law buffs help me with that - is it still canon law, 12 for a girl, 14 for a boy for a valid marriage or has this been addressed somehow? ]
With such a history of variation in marriage customs, the slippery slope argument just doesn't work, or the minute church reformers started accepting that there wasn't really an impediment to you marrying one of your child's godparents for example, it should all have gone to Hell in a handcart.
And as for those evil English permissives in 1907 allowing people to marry their deceased wife's sister, well obviously that was immediately followed by an outbreak of masters of foxhounds marrying their favourite hunter, the royal family deciding to emulate the Ptolemies and have brother-sister marriages, and children being forced up the aisle... Except none of that happened and on the age front things went in the other direction: clamours to raise the age of consent from the National Union of Societies for Equal Citizenship, led to the age limit being raised to 16 for both sexes in the Ages of Marriage Act in 1929.
So historically that argument has a really dodgy track record. If you wanted to seriously make it, you would need to also argue against inter-racial marriages and say that liberalisation on them caused a dangerous floodgates situation too, because it was done on human/civil rights grounds and allowed people to "push for equal rights to legalise relationships that society has always regarded as unacceptable." like gay marriage.
But in fact marriage legislation can tighten in the wake of specific reforms as well as liberalise - for example look at how many US states have revised their marriage ages upwards during the period that 'anti-miscegenation' laws were coming off the statute books.
The slippery slope/floodgates argument needs us to believe both that history is a one-way street which always leads towards widening definitions of marriage and that changing one variable in marriage law automatically leads to wholesale loosening of marriage law.
Neither is true.
cheers,
L
Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on
:
I believe there is some divine 'legislation' about marriage.
Genesis Ch 2:27,8 kind of says it all really. I wonder why God didn't create another 'man' for Adam out of his rib?
If anyone is serious about God, they have to put their agenda aside. As long as 'gay' is your bottom line you won't be hearing his voice simply because you are refusing to listen to what he has already said.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Because God didn't create anybody or anything out of ribs, except possibly laying the basis for some tasty cookery in the case of animal ribs (or cannibal feasts in humans!).
quote:
The mammalian X and Y chromosomes evolved from an ordinary pair of autosomes; the X retained and the Y gradually lost most ancestral genes. Through studies of surviving X-Y gene pairs, we have begun to reconstruct the evolutionary history of our sex chromosomes, which apparently had their origins about 240-320 million years ago, shortly after divergence of the mammalian and avian lineages
(quick research summary from this page)
Genesis is neither a biology textbook nor a basis for marriage legislation, unless you're really into concubines, polygamy, incest, and murdering your in-laws after conning them into getting circumcised, (not to mention dressing up as a prostitute after you get widowed and having sex with your father law and nicking his stuff, and him threatening to burn you alive while you're pregnant), but that would be very kinky. (I do hope Jamat isn't seriously listening to this stuff, I'm sure a lot of it's illegal these days ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
)
I prefer nice married gay people personally.
cheers
L.
[ 16. October 2011, 21:15: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I believe there is some divine 'legislation' about marriage.
Genesis Ch 2:27,8 kind of says it all really.
I'm afraid that verses 27 and 28 got left out of my Bible. In my Bible Chapter 2 ends at verse 25. Perhaps it's a liberal plot?
The only bit of the chapter that is actually divine legislation is the bit about not eating from the tree of the garden. The only other bit that claims anything like normative status is the bit about the man leaving his father and mother.
How many men these days don't leave their father and mother's house until they get married, and then go to live with their in-laws?
Unless the man leaves his father and mother only on marriage, he's not obeying that 'divine' legislation. It is I suppose ambiguous as to whether the woman can leave her father and mother before marriage or whether she may not leave her father and mother at all. But unless you're affirming that bit of the 'teaching' as well, you are picking and choosing to suit yourself and not to suit God.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
What I am trying to put forward is that changing the law to allow relationships that have previously been proscribed is to open the floodgates to anyone who wants to get on the bandwagon and push for equal rights to legalise relationships that society has always regarded as unacceptable. Gay relationships may not cause the same problems, but relationships that could be incestuous or involve minors are certainly unacceptable INMO. I fear that to slacken the laws will allow people to demand whatever they want under the guise of human rights.
Except that recognizing same-sex marriage has not led to these problems in the countries in which it exists. I grant you that 10 years isn't a very long time, but the opponents of same-sex marriage warned at the time of imminent disaster, rather as some on this thread have done, and it simply hasn't happened. They were, and are wrong. Just because it happened in a country not yours, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
In general, those who continue to articulate arguments that are clearly contrary to the demonstrated facts need to look carefully at what they are saying and why they are saying it.
John
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
What I am trying to put forward is that changing the law to allow relationships that have previously been proscribed is to open the floodgates to anyone who wants to get on the bandwagon and push for equal rights to legalise relationships that society has always regarded as unacceptable.
Only if you don't understand the rationale for the policy change, or have one. If the change is 'just because' then yes the floodgates are open. But if you think the argument is purely a 'just because' then you're rather missing the point.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I believe there is some divine 'legislation' about marriage.
Genesis Ch 2:27,8 kind of says it all really. I wonder why God didn't create another 'man' for Adam out of his rib?
Because God didn't flunk biology. Nor did he confuse the relational function of marriage with the somewhat procreational function of sex, as you have just done rather spectacularly.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I believe there is some divine 'legislation' about marriage.
Genesis Ch 2:27,8 kind of says it all really. I wonder why God didn't create another 'man' for Adam out of his rib?
Because God didn't flunk biology. Nor did he confuse the relational function of marriage with the somewhat procreational function of sex, as you have just done rather spectacularly.
I don't think that is fair on Jamat.
Assuming Jamat meant to quote Genesis 2: 24, then you'd then have to say that Jesus flunked biology when he quoted this verse (authoritatively) in Matthew 19 when discussing divorce.
(I'm not sold on Bib's 'slippery slope' idea though.)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Except that recognizing same-sex marriage has not led to these problems in the countries in which it exists. I grant you that 10 years isn't a very long time
I agree generally with your point against the slippery slope but I also think that you are massively understating here - 10 years is not even one generation. I'd be wary about commenting on the impact of same-sex marriage on society even after 50 years.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I believe there is some divine 'legislation' about marriage.
Genesis Ch 2:27,8 kind of says it all really. I wonder why God didn't create another 'man' for Adam out of his rib?
Because God didn't flunk biology. Nor did he confuse the relational function of marriage with the somewhat procreational function of sex, as you have just done rather spectacularly.
I don't think that is fair on Jamat.
Assuming Jamat meant to quote Genesis 2: 24, then you'd then have to say that Jesus flunked biology when he quoted this verse (authoritatively) in Matthew 19 when discussing divorce.
(I'm not sold on Bib's 'slippery slope' idea though.)
My point is that I don't see how THAT verse demonstrates anything about biology at all. When Jamat asks why God didn't create another male, the most obvious answer to me is that a pair of males don't have a womb between them for baby-making and God was rather keen on the idea that the human race would last beyond the first generation. It's not because two males couldn't get married.
If anything in Matthew 19 might be relevant it's not the quote of Gen 2:24, it's the quote of Gen 1:27 with it. But Gen 2:24 is about union, not about sex. If you try to read it as about physical sex it makes no sense, especially not in the light of Jesus' remarks. How can the physical act of sex be regarded as a permanent, unbreakable bond? It might be EVIDENCE of a permanent bond, it might help CREATE a permanent bond, but to regard sex itself as the actual 'one flesh' that can't be broken by a divorce is an interpretation that makes precious little sense to me.
[ 17. October 2011, 07:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
The problem with the slippery slope argument is that "gay marriage" is hardly the beginning of the slide. This is at best about trying to stop mid-slide.
But to explore the future downward direction a bit: can anyone who is for "gay marriage" explain to me why polygamy / polyandry between consenting, independent adults that love each other is wrong?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But to explore the future downward direction a bit: can anyone who is for "gay marriage" explain to me why polygamy / polyandry between consenting, independent adults that love each other is wrong?
It isn't - or at least if it is it is 'wrong' only in the sense that gay marraiage is wrong in that it is a personal moral choice which violates a number of ethical codes, including the one associated with traditional Christianity. It isn't 'wrong' in the sense of being an egregious injustice that requires the intervention of state power to prevent. Therefore it should, as a matter of principle, be legal.
The argument against is that permitting polygamous marriage does not in practice only permit it to "consenting, independent adults that love each other" but to those engaging in sexist and abusive marriages as well. We have good reason to think that legitimising polygyny will lead to increased injustice and diminished liberty for people who need more protection not less.
The whole slippery slope idea is nonsense (as Louise points out). We aren't moving from a strict ethic to a more liberal version of the same at all. We are moving from one definition of principle, based on an ethic of authority and conformity, to another definition of principle based on an ethic of equality and consent. We are, on the slope anology, moving across the landscape, not down it, and taking hold of an entirely different rope to hold us in place as we go. You might rationally be sceptical that the new and untried rope is as securely fastened as the one we are letting go, but you can't sensibly doubt that it is a rope at all.
But in any case, the new rope is the only one that is going to save us from falling. Society has taken enough of its weight off the old one, that in practical terms it isn't supporting us any more. If you want to keep us from tumbling down the slope, the rope that is actually in our grasp, the one that can offer real principled reasons which we might actually take hold of to prevent our further descent, is the one anchored by equality and consent.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It might be EVIDENCE of a permanent bond, it might help CREATE a permanent bond, but to regard sex itself as the actual 'one flesh' that can't be broken by a divorce is an interpretation that makes precious little sense to me.
No complaints from me here.
Marriage is much more than sex between a man and a woman ... it is not less than that though (or why else would Jesus quote that particular verse?)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It might be EVIDENCE of a permanent bond, it might help CREATE a permanent bond, but to regard sex itself as the actual 'one flesh' that can't be broken by a divorce is an interpretation that makes precious little sense to me.
No complaints from me here.
Marriage is much more than sex between a man and a woman ... it is not less than that though (or why else would Jesus quote that particular verse?)
He quotes it because it's the pertinent verse for saying that the relationship is lifelong! But to see the verse as making gender important begs the question somewhat. There were only a man and a woman available at that moment in time (putting aside questions of Genesis' literalness).
It says 'for this reason'. For WHAT reason? If it's fundamentally for relationship, and sex is the expression of the relationship not the whole cause and reason for it, then is the fact that the sex is heterosexual sex really as important as you're claiming?
I can't see why that should be so. I don't see why a homosexual man can't leave his father and mother, and join with another homosexual man, for exactly the same 'reason'.
Elsewhere on the Ship I've recently mentioned the phrase 'a narrative is not normative'. Just because Adam and Eve are a heterosexual couple, you've got some work to do before you can show that the nature of their relationship depended upon their heterosexuality. Heterosexuality is terribly common, and you lot do a wonderful job at the whole going forth and multiply bit, but the leap from being a biological norm to a MORAL norm is where it gets iffy.
(I'm suddenly reminded of the fact that people think the gender of a rape victim is terribly important in the Sodom story. Never mind the destruction God rains down on men that rape women elsewhere in the Bible, he CLEARLY destroyed Sodom because it was a gay thing.)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem with the slippery slope argument is that "gay marriage" is hardly the beginning of the slide. This is at best about trying to stop mid-slide.
Indeed. It could be argued that "traditional marriage" has already been destroyed by heterosexuals when they established women as the legal equals of men. A marriage defined by strictly-enforced gender roles has much less to offer a same-sex couple than does marriage defined as a loving partnership of equals.
I guess if you regard this as a bad thing, the question become how far back do you turn the clock? Overturn Loving v. Virginia (if you're an American)? Re-instate coverture laws? Legally forbid women from working high-end professions? How "traditional" do you want "traditional" marriage to be?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But to explore the future downward direction a bit: can anyone who is for "gay marriage" explain to me why polygamy / polyandry between consenting, independent adults that love each other is wrong?
Leaving aside questions of wrong or right, from a legal perspective it would be a mess. The whole body of family law (at least in the West) is built around the presumption of each person have at most one spouse at a time. As such, same-sex marriage can be slotted in to existing marriage laws fairly easily, in much the same way the legalization of inter-racial marriage in the U.S. did not require extensive re-writes of its laws. Or the way same-sex couples have been slotted into existing marriage laws in Canada and several other countries. On the other hand a system that involves mulitple spouses, and spouses of spouses, and their additional spouses as well, renders all kinds of questions about property inheritance, child custody, power of attorney, etc. unclear in the existing framework.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But to explore the future downward direction a bit: can anyone who is for "gay marriage" explain to me why polygamy / polyandry between consenting, independent adults that love each other is wrong?
Let's make a distinction, ultimately Aristotelian, between two kinds of 'wrong' - there's what's absolutely unlawful and what's unwise. Things that are unwise are contrary to some virtue or other: they develop some vice or other. However, the degree to which they develop virtue or vice may be variable from person to person: they are the kinds of things about which Aristotle said they are true only for the most part and in most cases. Gambling might be an example; excessive consumption of food, and so on. Although individuals are usually subject to illusion in their own cases on these matters, it's not the case that a virtuous person might never do them. Things that are absolutely unlawful run directly counter to the possibility of humans living together to seek the common good: murder of non-criminals is perhaps the central case.
The response to someone living their life in a way that's unwise may be to advise against if asked, and possibly to cease to associate if living with such a person requires approving their unwisdom; to someone doing what is absolutely wrong only condemnation is appropriate.
Polygamy and polyandry are confessedly not absolutely wrong according to all conservative Christian ethics, since the patriarchs were multiply married. Patristic ethics argued that there was a special dispensation at the time, due to the need to people the world, which has since been revoked.
However, they are contrary to the practice of certain virtues. It indulges a fantasy of unlimited sexual possibility, it means that at least one party to the marriage is still on the sexual market, in the forms of pure polygamy and polyandry it means that the relationship has an inexcapable imbalance in it, and so on. But some people might be able to live like that with minimal spiritual or moral harm to themselves. There is a further benefit to society of considering them wrong: single partner marriage takes people off the sexual market, freeing up their efforts for other activities, while multi-partner marriage doesn't. That's probably not sufficient to outweigh the freedom of individuals to pursue their lives according to their judgement about what is their good, but it might be sufficient to justify the state in not recognising it formally.
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:Leaving aside questions of wrong or right, from a legal perspective it would be a mess. The whole body of family law (at least in the West) is built around the presumption of each person have at most one spouse at a time.
I really don't think that the convenience of the state is a sufficient or even good reason for restricting people's freedom to live their lives as they choose.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
orfeo: quote:
Heterosexuality is terribly common, and you lot do a wonderful job at the whole going forth and multiply bit, but the leap from being a biological norm to a MORAL norm is where it gets iffy.
I recently saw a t-shirt that said: "Hetrosexuality isn't normal - it's COMMON".
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He quotes it because it's the pertinent verse for saying that the relationship is lifelong! But to see the verse as making gender important begs the question somewhat. There were only a man and a woman available at that moment in time (putting aside questions of Genesis' literalness).
Actually your interpretation depends entirely on it being a completely historical account. The only way you can say 'it just happened to be a man and a woman' is if the writer is only seeking to record exactly what happened at the time.
However, even YECies tend to view the creation accounts in Genesis as etiological myths. Verse 24 is the conclusion (one might even say climax ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
) of the search for a suitable partner for the man. In Genesis 1 the writer (or editor) has already used enough Hebrew words to be able to speak of man as humanity as well as to distinguish between male and female. If the writer had wanted to say that the man needed a partner who was 'of his flesh' he/she could easily have done that generically. Surely the whole point of Genesis 2 is that the man needed the woman as a partner and that relationship is seen in marriage?
Jesus certainly saw it as an etiological myth for marriage. Regardless of whether Genesis 2 is meant to be a historical account your interpretation is highly idiosyncratic.
[ 17. October 2011, 21:39: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I believe there is some divine 'legislation' about marriage.
Genesis Ch 2:27,8 kind of says it all really.
I'm afraid that verses 27 and 28 got left out of my Bible. In my Bible Chapter 2 ends at verse 25. Perhaps it's a liberal plot?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Marriage is much more than sex between a man and a woman ... it is not less than that though (or why else would Jesus quote that particular verse?)
But then, "Not all can accept this teaching ... Let anyone accept this who can."
I wonder what other bits have been swapped in/out of the "Conservative Bible" ...
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
changing the law to allow relationships that have previously been proscribed is to open the floodgates to anyone who wants to get on the bandwagon and push for equal rights to legalise relationships that society has always regarded as unacceptable.
But society has not always regarded polygamy as unacceptable. One is hard put to find it discouraged even in the Bible. It must have been fairly common and well-accepted, at least in some places, if Saint Paul had to advise that a bishop should be "the husband of [no more than] one wife".
So why is it unacceptable in our society? There are good reasons why.
quote:
Gay relationships may not cause the same problems, but relationships that could be incestuous or involve minors are certainly unacceptable INMO. I fear that to slacken the laws will allow people to demand whatever they want under the guise of human rights.
Is this what has happened? Since about 1975, gay relationships have become more accepted and adult-underage relationships even less so, to the point where pedophilia has become our society's defining obsession and taboo. Your fear seems to be quite devoid of support from the evidence.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I believe there is some divine 'legislation' about marriage.
Genesis Ch 2:27,8 kind of says it all really.
I'm afraid that verses 27 and 28 got left out of my Bible. In my Bible Chapter 2 ends at verse 25. Perhaps it's a liberal plot?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Marriage is much more than sex between a man and a woman ... it is not less than that though (or why else would Jesus quote that particular verse?)
But then, "Not all can accept this teaching ... Let anyone accept this who can."
I wonder what other bits have been swapped in/out of the "Conservative Bible" ...
I don't understand this.
I presumed Dafyd was joking - Jamat obviously made a typo (either referring to Genesis 1: 27-28 (about procreation) or Genesis 2: 24 (about sex). Maybe Jamat can clarify?
As for the bit you quote from Matthew 19 I don't see what relevance it has to the way Jesus understood Genesis 2.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
He quotes it because it's the pertinent verse for saying that the relationship is lifelong! But to see the verse as making gender important begs the question somewhat. There were only a man and a woman available at that moment in time (putting aside questions of Genesis' literalness).
Actually your interpretation depends entirely on it being a completely historical account. The only way you can say 'it just happened to be a man and a woman' is if the writer is only seeking to record exactly what happened at the time.
However, even YECies tend to view the creation accounts in Genesis as etiological myths. Verse 24 is the conclusion (one might even say climax ) of the search for a suitable partner for the man. In Genesis 1 the writer (or editor) has already used enough Hebrew words to be able to speak of man as humanity as well as to distinguish between male and female. If the writer had wanted to say that the man needed a partner who was 'of his flesh' he/she could easily have done that generically. Surely the whole point of Genesis 2 is that the man needed the woman as a partner and that relationship is seen in marriage?
Jesus certainly saw it as an etiological myth for marriage. Regardless of whether Genesis 2 is meant to be a historical account your interpretation is highly idiosyncratic.
I thought this might be where we were going...
So man needs a woman as a partner. The implication being no other partner will do.
Well, I've already pointed out the obvious reason why only a woman will do. She's got a womb.
But are you arguing anything apart from that? Are you going to tell me that I can't, in relationship terms, love a man and share my life with a man in exactly the same way as you can love a woman and share you life with a woman? Is there something your relationship has, other than the ready-made ability to procreate, that my relationship would fundamentally lack?
Do I not feel things in exactly the same way you do? Can I not have all the exact same highs and lows of relationships - finding someone who makes me weak at the knees, having my heart broken, the thrill of discovering more about a person and deepening the bond, the fights, the betrayal, the joy - that you can have?
I really want to know: is that all you've got as the difference? Because if so I have two responses.
1. You've reduced 'one flesh' to 'penis goes into vagina' again. And seeing as how it's a permanent thing, I guess it's 'penis goes into vagina and never comes out'. As previously discussed, this is silly.
2. I look forward to the introduction of fertility tests before marriage. Because as soon as you started allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry (post-menopausal women being the blindingly obvious example that was around long before modern science provided extra diagnostic tools) you kind of lost the ability to justify the exclusion of gays and lesbians on purely on the grounds of either having not enough wombs or not enough penises.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But are you arguing anything apart from that? Are you going to tell me that I can't, in relationship terms, love a man and share my life with a man in exactly the same way as you can love a woman and share you life with a woman? Is there something your relationship has, other than the ready-made ability to procreate, that my relationship would fundamentally lack?
Do I not feel things in exactly the same way you do? Can I not have all the exact same highs and lows of relationships - finding someone who makes me weak at the knees, having my heart broken, the thrill of discovering more about a person and deepening the bond, the fights, the betrayal, the joy - that you can have?
You are moving the goal posts here.
I haven't said anything about these questions at all.
You jumped on Jamat for claiming that Genesis (1 or 2!) gives a biblical mandate for heterosexual marriage. I pointed out that he was actually being consistent with Jesus here. That is all.
Since Jesus took Genesis 2 as an etiological myth about heterosexual marriage it seems to me that the burden of proof rests on you to show that 'become one flesh' is not a specifically male - female thing rather than on me to demonstrate that Genesis 2 cannot equally apply to homosexual marriage.
Was it just a coincidence that the writer describes a serpent in chapter 3? (i.e. are we to conclude that horses should crawl on their bellies now too?) It may be possible for a homosexual couple to become one flesh in the way Genesis 2 describes, but you cannot deduce that from Genesis 2. Genesis 2 is a story explaining why men marry women.
My overall point was about the text. Do you think that it is possible for some Christians to hold convictions about morality just because they believe God has revealed objective morality in the bible?
Or are you convinced that such a thing is impossible, and that it can only be because of latent homophobia?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm saying that you can't discuss becoming one flesh without discussing 'For this reason'. WHAT reason?
Is my capacity to love dictated by the shape of my body?
As for your questions at the end, I'm not one of those people who think that people can't sincerely and honestly believe stuff. People can sincerely and honestly believe all sorts of wrong-headed things though. The sincerity of the belief tells me nothing about how they actually got there. People get to a belief in an enormous amount of ways, from careful reasoning to not-so-careful reasoning to circular arguments to because an authority figure in their life said so.
Nor is there any correlation between the sincerity of belief and its accuracy. To take a trivial example, how many people sincerely and honestly believe that Shakespeare wrote the immortal line "Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him well!"?
I'm usually far less interested in what people believe than in why they believe it. Don't give me the conclusion, give me the premises it's based on.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Addendum: The show 'QI' is entirely built on the basis of lots of people sincerely believing things that are demonstrably false. Sirens go off every time this happens.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not moving the goalposts.
Yes you are. You are asking me to argue from human biology why I think homosexual marriage is wrong. I'm not attempting to do that. I have no biological clue as to why God might say that. I am saying that the only reason I believe it to be wrong comes down to my interpretation of the bible.
I also believe that Muslims are wrong. This has nothing to do with them being intellectually inferior or in some way deficient as human beings. My reasons are theological. As you say, someone can be sincerely wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm saying that you can't discuss becoming one flesh without discussing 'For this reason'. WHAT reason?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
For the reason he states in Matthew 19 - 'at the beginning the Creator made them male and female'.
As I said in my last post it may be possible to argue that homosexual union could also be equivalent to the 'one flesh' Jesus talks about here. I'm just saying that it is impossible to do so from this text. Jamat was being consistent. As you rightly pointed earlier Genesis 2: 24 does not mention procreation. I can see how using other passages of scripture it might be possible to mount a case for defending homosexual marriage as a divinely mandate covenant. Personally I'd say that Genesis 2: 24 needs be interpreted in the light of Genesis 1: 27-28 ... but at this point we really need Jamat to return and put us out of our misery. (Indeed I'm not sure we can make much progress without him making clear what he was alluding to.)
If you read a tale by Kipling explaining how the leopard got its spots, it may prompt you to wonder if cheetah's got their spots the same way (and you may even be right) but the story doesn't tell you.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm usually far less interested in what people believe than in why they believe it. Don't give me the conclusion, give me the premises it's based on.
I have done, on several occasions. You want me to accept your premises and then argue my case.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: The show 'QI' is entirely built on the basis of lots of people sincerely believing things that are demonstrably false. Sirens go off every time this happens.
QI is a favourite show of mine, although you meant to say "... things that Stephen Fry believes are false."
I seem to remember a classic show on Christmas (which did make me laugh a lot) but was full of stuff on Mithras which any decent academic would tell you came straight from the daily mail.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You jumped on Jamat for claiming that Genesis (1 or 2!) gives a biblical mandate for heterosexual marriage. I pointed out that he was actually being consistent with Jesus here. That is all.
Since Jesus took Genesis 2 as an etiological myth about heterosexual marriage it seems to me that the burden of proof rests on you to show that 'become one flesh' is not a specifically male - female thing
I'll have a go. Genesis 2:23.
Look at the way Adam's heart seems to cry out in delight when he sees for the first time the person who was made for him, when God brings them together. That's marriage as it ought to be. That recognition, which is more than love and certainly more than lust, that God has made the two of us to be one, is what Christian marriage aspires too. Anyone who has felt like that has already experience something hallowed, "instituted of God in the time of man's innocence", on which marriage can be founded.
The question then, is whether a man's heart ever has cried out with Adam's "This at last!" on recognising his perfect companion in the person of another man? Or if a woman has ever felt that when realising how completely she could love another woman? Because if they have, it seems to me that the burden is on you to show that this feeling is unworthy, or mistaken. If orfeo (for example) can say in good faith that, yes, he recognises, with the same grace that Adam recognised, the person made for him, then he's inside the Genesis 2 model. You can't take him out of that model by arguing that his choice is unsuitable. The whole point of the story is that Adam didn't have to be told which of God's creatures was the right one for him, he saw for himself, and knew, and rejoiced. If gay people have that same exhilarating experience, then this is their story, too. Gay men are Adam's sons no less than straight ones.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Look at the way Adam's heart seems to cry out in delight when he sees for the first time the person who was made for him, when God brings them together. That's marriage as it ought to be. That recognition, which is more than love and certainly more than lust, that God has made the two of us to be one, is what Christian marriage aspires too. Anyone who has felt like that has already experience something hallowed, "instituted of God in the time of man's innocence", on which marriage can be founded.
The question then, is whether a man's heart ever has cried out with Adam's "This at last!" on recognising his perfect companion in the person of another man? Or if a woman has ever felt that when realising how completely she could love another woman? Because if they have, it seems to me that the burden is on you to show that this feeling is unworthy, or mistaken. If orfeo (for example) can say in good faith that, yes, he recognises, with the same grace that Adam recognised, the person made for him, then he's inside the Genesis 2 model. You can't take him out of that model by arguing that his choice is unsuitable. The whole point of the story is that Adam didn't have to be told which of God's creatures was the right one for him, he saw for himself, and knew, and rejoiced. If gay people have that same exhilarating experience, then this is their story, too. Gay men are Adam's sons no less than straight ones.
Not only that. But Adam's heart cried out because Eve was made for him. Even for your standard to be reached it needs to be demonstrated that men other than Adam have had their hearts cry out in that way. And then when gay people are in love it is qualitatively different.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The problem with the slippery slope argument is that "gay marriage" is hardly the beginning of the slide. This is at best about trying to stop mid-slide.
But to explore the future downward direction a bit: can anyone who is for "gay marriage" explain to me why polygamy / polyandry between consenting, independent adults that love each other is wrong?
Where you see a slippery slope, I do too. But that's because we aren't sliding - we are mountaineering with pick and crampons. Jesus didn't even preach against slavery, it was so ubiquitous. We have almost ended it. Jesus caused the dead to rise. We've had to redefine death from heart stopping to brainstem death. And as for the lame walking, that's commonplace. Jesus preached that "The poor shall always be with you." And we are at a point where we can ask why. Violence has massively decreased (and if you want to talk about genocide, read your OT - then your Ceasar).
This isn't to say we've made it. There's still a lot to do - and Usury is a serious problem. That we can ask why doesn't mean that we've answered the problem that people are poor. Or that there's enough power and will to actually fix things. And then there's global warming and other such issues. But compared to the times Jesus was preaching in when this would have been unimaginable we live in a paradise.
I too see the danger of the slide. But the danger I see is people like you trying to drag us back down the mountain to about 1st Century Judea. Taking us from marriage based on mutual consent back to a biblical definition of marriage based on property rights, in which if a woman was raped the woman would marry the rapist.
As for polygamy, no I can't explain it being wrong if it's between consenting adults. Authorising it would, however, be an enabler to certain forms of abuse.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
That's a pretty good start Eliab. Thanks.
You had me for a while but lost me when you had to overstate your case in order to make your point:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The whole point of the story is that Adam didn't have to be told which of God's creatures was the right one for him, he saw for himself, and knew, and rejoiced.
The whole point?
Did Jesus miss the whole point in Matthew 19 then?
I suppose it is possible that a point of the story is the one you are making, but even that is a big stretch since it is entirely supposition on your part.
[Right, I'm off to bed myself now. I'll count my ribs in the morning and check for people growing from the dust under my bed.]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I think Eliab's argument is very well made. It may not be literally the only point of the story, but it is surely the dramatic crux of it. Adam recognises the one who is made for him, that sameness in difference, that possibility of finding oneself in another, and speaks the moving words 'Here at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.' Recognition.
(I don't think Jesus' interpretation counts for much. He didn't have the benefit of being able to read Bultmann or Von Rad or E P Sanders.)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:
Leaving aside questions of wrong or right, from a legal perspective it would be a mess. The whole body of family law (at least in the West) is built around the presumption of each person have at most one spouse at a time.
I really don't think that the convenience of the state is a sufficient or even good reason for restricting people's freedom to live their lives as they choose.
The convenience of the state has nothing to do with it. I'm simply pointing out that polygamy is essentially a different question, from the state's perspective, than same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is essentially a question of enfranchisement, or "who can participate in the system?" Polygamy, on the other hand, is a structural question: "what kind of system are we participating in?"
Of course, as I noted earlier a lot of this is due to the gender equality assumed under current law. If we lived under a system where there were differences under the law between husbands and wives (e.g. a husband can own property, sign contracts, file for divorce, but a wife cannot), then same-sex marriage would represent a question of form instead of franchise. Most of us do not live under such legal systems, though.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Johnny, I think it's worth pointing out that it was you who brought Matthew 19 into this. Not Jamat. So I don't really see how that constitutes me having moved the goalposts. Jamat referred to Genesis chapter 2, and that was entirely the passage I focused on (paying attention to the verse Jamat appeared to be citing, and ignoring the slip of Jamat's typing finger).
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think Eliab's argument is very well made. It may not be literally the only point of the story, but it is surely the dramatic crux of it.
It is a bit of a big leap to say that something that isn't actually in the text (i.e. Eliab's psychological reconstruction of what was going on in Adam's head) is the crux of the story.
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
(I don't think Jesus' interpretation counts for much. He didn't have the benefit of being able to read Bultmann or Von Rad or E P Sanders.)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Johnny, I think it's worth pointing out that it was you who brought Matthew 19 into this. Not Jamat. So I don't really see how that constitutes me having moved the goalposts. Jamat referred to Genesis chapter 2, and that was entirely the passage I focused on (paying attention to the verse Jamat appeared to be citing, and ignoring the slip of Jamat's typing finger).
You're right - until Jamat clears up what he was referring to there isn't much point carrying this on.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I think Eliab's argument is very well made. It may not be literally the only point of the story, but it is surely the dramatic crux of it.
It is a bit of a big leap to say that something that isn't actually in the text (i.e. Eliab's psychological reconstruction of what was going on in Adam's head) is the crux of the story.
Adam's poetic exclamation is there, and it looks to me like an expression of joyful recognition, which is what Eliab said, isn't it? It comes as the culmination of the description of God's search for a 'helpmeet' for Adam, a section that reads a bit like a shaggy dog story in search of a punchline, so it encourages the view that this exclamation should bear a good deal of interpretative weight.
And besides, I've preached many wedding sermons on this verse, making much the same point as Eliab, so it must be right! And it would seem natural to use the story at a gay marriage, should I ever have the privilege of being asked to conduct one.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos:
Leaving aside questions of wrong or right, from a legal perspective it would be a mess. The whole body of family law (at least in the West) is built around the presumption of each person have at most one spouse at a time.
I really don't think that the convenience of the state is a sufficient or even good reason for restricting people's freedom to live their lives as they choose.
The convenience of the state has nothing to do with it. I'm simply pointing out that polygamy is essentially a different question, from the state's perspective, than same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is essentially a question of enfranchisement, or "who can participate in the system?" Polygamy, on the other hand, is a structural question: "what kind of system are we participating in?"
With respect to you, this bald assertion is precisely the point on which we disagree. To state it as a given is rather begging the question.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The convenience of the state has nothing to do with it. I'm simply pointing out that polygamy is essentially a different question, from the state's perspective, than same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is essentially a question of enfranchisement, or "who can participate in the system?" Polygamy, on the other hand, is a structural question: "what kind of system are we participating in?"
With respect to you, this bald assertion is precisely the point on which we disagree. To state it as a given is rather begging the question.
I'm not sure it does. Which of the legal requirements for marriage in your jurisdiction cannot be met by partners with matching genitals (aside from the arbitrary assumption that they must have mis-matched genitals)?
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The convenience of the state has nothing to do with it. I'm simply pointing out that polygamy is essentially a different question, from the state's perspective, than same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage is essentially a question of enfranchisement, or "who can participate in the system?" Polygamy, on the other hand, is a structural question: "what kind of system are we participating in?"
With respect to you, this bald assertion is precisely the point on which we disagree. To state it as a given is rather begging the question.
I'm not sure it does. Which of the legal requirements for marriage in your jurisdiction cannot be met by partners with matching genitals (aside from the arbitrary assumption that they must have mis-matched genitals)?
As you know, I don't accept the positvist worldview that says that a marriage is simply what the state should decide that it is.
Although, in saying that, at the moment, where I live, the legal requirement for marriage that can't be met by partners with matching genitals is that marriage is not defined to include people with matching genitals.
Because you have a definition of marriage outside that of the state's current one you think the law should be changed. Because I have a different definition to you I don't think it should be. Simply appealing to the state's current view of what marriage is simply begs the question of which definition of marriage is correct. Legally, at the moment, the incorrect definition is yours, if you want to be all positivist about it.
If you're saying that morally there is another definition that the state should impose, that's a different matter. But let's not pretend that changing the definition to include same sex partners would not be a rather large change to the current definition.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
As you know, I don't accept the positvist worldview that says that a marriage is simply what the state should decide that it is.
Although, in saying that, at the moment, where I live, the legal requirement for marriage that can't be met by partners with matching genitals is that marriage is not defined to include people with matching genitals.
Because you have a definition of marriage outside that of the state's current one you think the law should be changed. Because I have a different definition to you I don't think it should be. Simply appealing to the state's current view of what marriage is simply begs the question of which definition of marriage is correct. Legally, at the moment, the incorrect definition is yours, if you want to be all positivist about it.
If you're saying that morally there is another definition that the state should impose, that's a different matter. But let's not pretend that changing the definition to include same sex partners would not be a rather large change to the current definition.
I'd imagine it would be about the same order of magnitude of change as when the U.S. legalized inter-racial marriage. The standard used in that case, which would seem to be applicable to the current debate, is asking the questions "is there a legitimate state interest that is advanced by restricting marriage to those with [the same race / different genitals]? If so, is this the least intrusive/restrictive way for the state to achieve that goal?" Of course, both the inter-racial and same-sex marriage bans fail the first question, so the "If so, . . . " never really comes in to play.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
Clearly for several hundred years "the state" whoever that is, disagreed with you. "The state" may change it's mind to agree with you.
Both of us are coming with an definition of marriage independent of that of "the state", and would prefer the state's definition to correspond with our own. All I'm saying is that that is what you are arguing for - don't pretend you're not.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
In Canada, equal marriage has been the law for many years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
Marriage, from a legal point of view, is nothing other but a type of contract between two people that provides certain legal protections and obligations. The state also has an interest in enforcing anti-discrimination law. Once the state recognized sexual orientation as a protected class, then logically, contracts should be administered equally.
AFAIC, the whole incest argument is a red herring. If it were up to me, all countries would follow the example that Tasmania has provided through its Relationships Act. This law allows any person to designate any other person as their exclusive legal partner and receive all the benefits of marriage.
Straight couples and gay couples can get married; a son can "marry" his widowed mother; a brother can "marry" his sister, two friends can get married, and all of them receive identical tax benefits, property rights, pension rights and all other rights as well as be subject to the same duties of a traditional married couple. One partner can even jointly adopt the other's child.
The only requirements should be 1) the legal capacity to enter into a contract (which would exclude minors) and 2) not being in an already existing "marriage".
Laws regulating sexual contact should be separated from marriage. Incest, and conduct with minors prohibitions, should remain in place. They have nothing to do with contract law in any case.
But that will preserve all the existing legislation and jurisprudence around marriage while providing equality to people in all kinds of relationships.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Straight couples and gay couples can get married; a son can "marry" his widowed mother; a brother can "marry" his sister, two friends can get married, and all of them receive identical tax benefits, property rights, pension rights and all other rights as well as be subject to the same duties of a traditional married couple. One partner can even jointly adopt the other's child.
Actually from my position that would be a much better arrangement too - then the "spiritual" aspect of the romantic bit is left up to the two people/their chosen faith community to decide how to "bless" as such.
Incidentally, it wasn't incest but polyamory that was being mentioned. I actually don't think that either is equivalent to a same sex civil partnership - but how is the "multiple parties to a contract" thing managed in Tasmania?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It isn't - or at least if it is it is 'wrong' only in the sense that gay marraiage is wrong in that it is a personal moral choice which violates a number of ethical codes, including the one associated with traditional Christianity.
There is no such thing as a "personal morality". This is the case whether one believes in natural moral law (as I do) or in "social contract" moral law (as most people do nowadays). The difference between the two is merely that the former is universal and the latter only society-wide. The very point of morality is to be interpersonal, because it sets norms of behaviour among people. For example, murder does not become good if I individually happen to believe that it is. If gay marriage is a valid choice, then it must be morally good or neutral, at least in this society, if not universally. Morals cannot themselves fall under "live and let live", because they tell us what to live and let live by.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We have good reason to think that legitimising polygyny will lead to increased injustice and diminished liberty for people who need more protection not less.
Polgamy has not been tried in a modern Western context. In particular, one might see polgyny and polyandry in roughly equal proportion, which would be truly novel. Furthermore, marriage has largely ceased to be a way of doing business. Its main economic function is now to represent two people as unit to the state (and derived from this, to employers, insurances, etc.). It is unclear (to me at least) what abuse polygamy would spawn in modern Western circumstances.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We aren't moving from a strict ethic to a more liberal version of the same at all. We are moving from one definition of principle, based on an ethic of authority and conformity, to another definition of principle based on an ethic of equality and consent.
Well, it's more a move from an ethic of realistic universalism to an ethic of utilitarian relativism. But be that as it may be, a slippery slope can of course be defined (albeit vaguely) by the "distance" an ethic is estimated to have from another one considered as norm. If that "distance" grows, then that ethic is sliding away from the normative one.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If you want to keep us from tumbling down the slope, the rope that is actually in our grasp, the one that can offer real principled reasons which we might actually take hold of to prevent our further descent, is the one anchored by equality and consent.
Firstly, if we got from A to B morally, somehow, then there is nothing that speaks per se against going back from B to A morally, somehow. Moral development is not a one way street. Secondly, the lived practice of morals is based on "case law" more than principles. A big deal is made out of principles mostly when there is an attempt to overthrow this "case law". However, people can and do live their entire lives quite happily with moral "case law" that is incoherent in principles. The idea that morals are somehow "all or nothing" is practically speaking false, there is plenty of give there for more gradual change.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It could be argued that "traditional marriage" has already been destroyed by heterosexuals when they established women as the legal equals of men.
There is no necessary connection between "traditional" marriage and (legal) gender inequality, even though there was a historic one. Furthermore, the genders are in fact different and IMHO the jury is still out whether modernity handles the "equal but different" conundrum of heterosexual relationships all that well.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Leaving aside questions of wrong or right, from a legal perspective it would be a mess. The whole body of family law (at least in the West) is built around the presumption of each person have at most one spouse at a time.
This is of course quite irrelevant. If current law is demonstrably unjust, then it has to be changed to become just, no matter how inconvenient the process may be. I'm sure removing racism from legislation caused all sorts of headaches, but it was the right thing to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Polygamy and polyandry are confessedly not absolutely wrong according to all conservative Christian ethics, since the patriarchs were multiply married.
Well, it's a bit more interesting than that. Tradition has it that Christ did forbid polygamy (though I don't think that you will get that from the NT alone). If so, then polygamy is disobedience to an explicit Divine command and as such absolutely wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But society has not always regarded polygamy as unacceptable. One is hard put to find it discouraged even in the Bible. It must have been fairly common and well-accepted, at least in some places, if Saint Paul had to advise that a bishop should be "the husband of [no more than] one wife".
Actually, the sense of this verse (1 Tim 3:2, cf. 1 Tim 3:12) is apparently unclear from the Greek. It is not even sure that a "practical" translation is appropriate (this could rather mean that a bishop should be a "one-woman man", i.e., faithful). Even if one should count the actual number of spouses here, it is not clear whether that means concurrent, cf. 1 Tim 5:9. This hence could be addressing polygamy, but maybe not.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
1. You've reduced 'one flesh' to 'penis goes into vagina' again. And seeing as how it's a permanent thing, I guess it's 'penis goes into vagina and never comes out'. As previously discussed, this is silly.
That is not so silly at all. God is heavily into embodying spiritual things. Heck, he even incarnated Himself... There is a special word for a sign that brings about what it signifies: sacrament. Sex is, or rather should be, sacramental.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
2. I look forward to the introduction of fertility tests before marriage. Because as soon as you started allowing infertile heterosexuals to marry (post-menopausal women being the blindingly obvious example that was around long before modern science provided extra diagnostic tools) you kind of lost the ability to justify the exclusion of gays and lesbians on purely on the grounds of either having not enough wombs or not enough penises.
Moderns always err in the abstract, and so you here even in critiquing the concrete. That is to say, it's even worse (more concrete) than you think:
quote:
RC Code of Canon Law 1983:
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.
Procreation tells us what kind of sexual act is the matter of marriage. Actual procreation is a typical outcome of this act, and it cannot be wilfully impeded without changing what the act is about, but the procreative outcome of any individual sexual act is as such irrelevant. It really is about sticking a penis in a vagina...
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'll have a go. Genesis 2:23. ... The question then, is whether a man's heart ever has cried out with Adam's "This at last!" on recognising his perfect companion in the person of another man? Or if a woman has ever felt that when realising how completely she could love another woman? Because if they have, it seems to me that the burden is on you to show that this feeling is unworthy, or mistaken.
Gen 1:27-28, 3:16, 3:20.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Gay men are Adam's sons no less than straight ones.
Certainly. One might even say that they are more sons of the fallen one, by virtue of being gay.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But the danger I see is people like you trying to drag us back down the mountain to about 1st Century Judea. Taking us from marriage based on mutual consent back to a biblical definition of marriage based on property rights, in which if a woman was raped the woman would marry the rapist.
I assume that such desperately cheap rhetoric is a sign for the general weakness of your arguments. Mutual consent is a fundamental feature of Christian marriage, and of course enshrined in RC canon law (an entire chapter is devoted to that in CIC 1983, and there's even a specific provision against abduction Can 1089).
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for polygamy, no I can't explain it being wrong if it's between consenting adults. Authorising it would, however, be an enabler to certain forms of abuse.
Authorising monogamy is without question an enabler to certain forms of abuse.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
If it were up to me, all countries would follow the example that Tasmania has provided through its Relationships Act. This law allows any person to designate any other person as their exclusive legal partner and receive all the benefits of marriage.
As it happens, I completely agree with this. Current legislation in most countries is a fudge, and this is what a straightforward realization of the intent behind that fudge would look like (and if you agree with the intent: should look like). Two questions arise though.- Why would anyone insist on calling this marriage (and I guess the Tasmanian government isn't)? Marriage may be one of the relationships that would be covered by this law, but that does not mean that other such relationships should be called marriage. If two gay men register their relationship with the Tasmanian government in order to gain some perks/rights, then that's fine (at least apparently by the Tasmanian government). But it creates no marriage between them, as indeed nothing can.
- Why would the state support such a scheme? There is a clear motivation for the state to support marriages, because they tend to lead to the birth and raising up of new citizens. It's much less clear to me why the state would care about other relationships. Perhaps there are good reasons why such a "relationship law" will bring a good return of investment for the state - in which case I for one would certainly support such a law. I however also support that the state ramps up support for those who actually produce and raise children, if need be by reducing other benefits - including those stemming from this relationship law.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It could be argued that "traditional marriage" has already been destroyed by heterosexuals when they established women as the legal equals of men.
There is no necessary connection between "traditional" marriage and (legal) gender inequality, even though there was a historic one. Furthermore, the genders are in fact different and IMHO the jury is still out whether modernity handles the "equal but different" conundrum of heterosexual relationships all that well.
First, how can legal gender inequality within marriage be "historic" but not "traditional"? I think you're parsing synonyms too closely.
Second, the question isn't whether the genders are different, but if they're different enough to be treated differently under marital law. (Or any other law for that matter.) Tradition/history says "yes", current law says "no". Your abhorence of the "slippery slope" implies you side with tradition/history on this question.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Leaving aside questions of wrong or right, from a legal perspective it would be a mess. The whole body of family law (at least in the West) is built around the presumption of each person have at most one spouse at a time.
This is of course quite irrelevant. If current law is demonstrably unjust, then it has to be changed to become just, no matter how inconvenient the process may be. I'm sure removing racism from legislation caused all sorts of headaches, but it was the right thing to do.
See above. If laws forbidding plural marriages are unjust, they're unjust for very different reasons than the reasons treating same-sex relationships differently under the law than opposite-sex relationships is unjust. In other words, this argument is a tangent deliberately designed to distract from the relevant issues.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Polygamy and polyandry are confessedly not absolutely wrong according to all conservative Christian ethics, since the patriarchs were multiply married.
Well, it's a bit more interesting than that. Tradition has it that Christ did forbid polygamy (though I don't think that you will get that from the NT alone). If so, then polygamy is disobedience to an explicit Divine command and as such absolutely wrong.
If it's not in the NT, how is it an "explicit divine command"? "Tradition" seems remarkably implicit to me.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Straight couples and gay couples can get married; a son can "marry" his widowed mother; a brother can "marry" his sister, two friends can get married, and all of them receive identical tax benefits, property rights, pension rights and all other rights as well as be subject to the same duties of a traditional married couple. One partner can even jointly adopt the other's child.
Actually from my position that would be a much better arrangement too - then the "spiritual" aspect of the romantic bit is left up to the two people/their chosen faith community to decide how to "bless" as such.
Incidentally, it wasn't incest but polyamory that was being mentioned. I actually don't think that either is equivalent to a same sex civil partnership - but how is the "multiple parties to a contract" thing managed in Tasmania?
It's not covered in Tasmania, presumably because it would raise all kinds of legislation and litigation issues about how the distribution of assets, property and benefits would be managed for multiple spouses, that aren't covered under existing marital law.
A few examples: Would a working spouse be required to provide pay and employer-provided benefits, pensions, assets, etc., to each spouse equally while they are married, or would an eldest spouse get more than subsequent spouses? Would the eldest spouse get an equal share of assets, or pensions/social insurance, or employer provided benefits, or child (or multiple children) custody, as each subsequent spouse if they divorce, or should a spouse get more (and how much) based on seniority in the relationship? Or instead should the distribution be based on some other criteria (like the assets each spouse had at time of marriage, or family connections)?
How would divorce be handled if two spouses want to leave but the others want to stay? Which spouse(s) would get final say when it comes to medical treatment decisions for their partner? Who would make the funeral decisions or disposition of an estate if a spouse dies? Would these decisions be put to a vote? Would these be equal or weighted votes, and based on what criteria?
Civil marriage is a shortcut status that provides a list of legal benefits and obligations for a couple in western countries. Adding more partners to marriage would add levels of complexity that doesn't fit into the "one size fits all" version of marriage that exists in industrialized nations currently.
While gay marriage and the Tasmanian Act can easily fit into the binary version of marriage that already exists, poly- marriage would require social, legislative and judicial consensus on assets and decisions that would take years to hash out.
Countries that already allow polygamous marriage (Muslim countries, mostly) deal these complexities through traditional or religious practises that discriminate based on gender, social status, age and/or economic status, but these criteria would be unacceptable in industrialized western countries today.
And while sexual orientation is recognized by psychology as an innate characteristic and protected by law, polyamory is a purely voluntary social arrangement.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Straight couples and gay couples can get married; a son can "marry" his widowed mother; a brother can "marry" his sister, two friends can get married, and all of them receive identical tax benefits, property rights, pension rights and all other rights as well as be subject to the same duties of a traditional married couple. One partner can even jointly adopt the other's child.
Actually from my position that would be a much better arrangement too - then the "spiritual" aspect of the romantic bit is left up to the two people/their chosen faith community to decide how to "bless" as such.
This makes it look very much as if you all care about is that the word 'marriage' isn't used to lump into your spiritually romantic union with various other unions you don't consider to be spiritual.
The state can recognise whatever it likes so long as it doesn't use 'your' word.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Re the Tasmanian system: there is one difference ot marriage which is probably not of much practicial difference but worth nothing anyway as a legal difference. The Tasmanian system is a registration of existing relationships. It is not, legally speaking, the creation of a whole new relationship in the way that a marriage is. You couldn't turn up with someone you've just met and decide you want to get 'registered'.
At least, that's how 98% of the people I've ever discussed this issue with think. Rodney Croome, who is a leading gay rights advocate in Tasmania and who was involved quite a bit in the development of the Tasmanian system, will do some quite amazing linguistic and conceptual somersaults to demonstrate that a new relationship is created rather than an existing one is registered, but I've yet to meet anyone with legal training who agrees with him. The legislation quite clearly requires you to swear that you are IN a registrable relationship, not that you wish to enter into one, before you can be registered. Contrast that with a marriage ceremony.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
First, how can legal gender inequality within marriage be "historic" but not "traditional"? I think you're parsing synonyms too closely.
Firstly, I used scare quotes on "traditional", but not on "historic". That was on purpose. Secondly, there's a difference between principle and practice. Tradition can be about passing on the principle, or the practice, or both. Where the practice is unrelated to, or even at odds with, the principle, that makes a difference. Hence one can be for "traditional" marriage (principle) without considering the 1950's as the be all and end all (practice).
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Second, the question isn't whether the genders are different, but if they're different enough to be treated differently under marital law.
That's actually an interesting question. Unfortunately, you merely ask it in order to discredit me and/or "traditional" marriage. But even if one is into "headship" and all that, it is far from clear what that implies, legally or otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, this argument is a tangent deliberately designed to distract from the relevant issues.
Ah. Well, thanks for the admission of guilt, I guess. Next time though, spare us, please.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If it's not in the NT, how is it an "explicit divine command"? "Tradition" seems remarkably implicit to me.
You are a Protestant atheist. I'm a Catholic.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
First, how can legal gender inequality within marriage be "historic" but not "traditional"? I think you're parsing synonyms too closely.
Firstly, I used scare quotes on "traditional", but not on "historic". That was on purpose.
Sorry. I thought you were using quotes because you were quoting me, since you were using the exact words I used in the post you were responding to. How does one distinguish between "scare quotes" and "quote quotes"?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Secondly, there's a difference between principle and practice. Tradition can be about passing on the principle, or the practice, or both. Where the practice is unrelated to, or even at odds with, the principle, that makes a difference. Hence one can be for "traditional" marriage (principle) without considering the 1950's as the be all and end all (practice).
Not to go all meta on you, but while there may be a difference between principle and practice in principle, there is none in practice in this particular case. Legal inequality between men and women under marital law is traditional in both principle and practice.
And who said anything about the 1950s? Surely the 1850s are just as traditional, or the 1150s.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Second, the question isn't whether the genders are different, but if they're different enough to be treated differently under marital law.
That's actually an interesting question. Unfortunately, you merely ask it in order to discredit me and/or "traditional" marriage. But even if one is into "headship" and all that, it is far from clear what that implies, legally or otherwise.
Not really. It was pretty clear to those who established the "traditional" legal regimes dealing with marriage that husbands and wives were not equal in the eyes of the law, either in "principle" or in "practice". (Guess which kind of quotes those are!) Claiming "otherwise" is "revisionist".
[ 20. October 2011, 00:10: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If it's not in the NT, how is it an "explicit divine command"? "Tradition" seems remarkably implicit to me.
You are a Protestant atheist. I'm a Catholic.
Actually, I'm not. But it should be noted that Protestants also have a tradition of getting explicit commands from God in addition to His purported statements in the Second Testament (e.g. Oral Roberts' need to come up with a quick US$8,000,000, many of the utterances of Marion "Pat" Robertson, etc.)
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Straight couples and gay couples can get married; a son can "marry" his widowed mother; a brother can "marry" his sister, two friends can get married, and all of them receive identical tax benefits, property rights, pension rights and all other rights as well as be subject to the same duties of a traditional married couple. One partner can even jointly adopt the other's child.
Actually from my position that would be a much better arrangement too - then the "spiritual" aspect of the romantic bit is left up to the two people/their chosen faith community to decide how to "bless" as such.
This makes it look very much as if you all care about is that the word 'marriage' isn't used to lump into your spiritually romantic union with various other unions you don't consider to be spiritual.
The state can recognise whatever it likes so long as it doesn't use 'your' word.
Well, kind of. The fact is that in the UK with an established church, the word marriage is inextricably linked with the spiritual concept of marriage as the church has taught it. Now the state wants to redefine that in ways that the church does not accept (as yet!)
Legally, I do believe that people should be able to make whatever contractual relations they wish. It's calling it marriage, a word so bound up with concepts taken from the Christian worldview that I have a problem with. Of course, I understand that for advocates of gay marriage that's precisely the why the term is important too: I don't think many would be happy with a legal setup that gives all the same legal obligations and rights as marriage but is called something different.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Straight couples and gay couples can get married; a son can "marry" his widowed mother; a brother can "marry" his sister, two friends can get married, and all of them receive identical tax benefits, property rights, pension rights and all other rights as well as be subject to the same duties of a traditional married couple. One partner can even jointly adopt the other's child.
Actually from my position that would be a much better arrangement too - then the "spiritual" aspect of the romantic bit is left up to the two people/their chosen faith community to decide how to "bless" as such.
This makes it look very much as if you all care about is that the word 'marriage' isn't used to lump into your spiritually romantic union with various other unions you don't consider to be spiritual.
The state can recognise whatever it likes so long as it doesn't use 'your' word.
Well, kind of. The fact is that in the UK with an established church, the word marriage is inextricably linked with the spiritual concept of marriage as the church has taught it. Now the state wants to redefine that in ways that the church does not accept (as yet!)
Legally, I do believe that people should be able to make whatever contractual relations they wish. It's calling it marriage, a word so bound up with concepts taken from the Christian worldview that I have a problem with. Of course, I understand that for advocates of gay marriage that's precisely the why the term is important too: I don't think many would be happy with a legal setup that gives all the same legal obligations and rights as marriage but is called something different.
I don't know about the stats in the UK, but here in Australia over half of all marriages (full-on, recognised heterosexual ones) have no Christian or church component in them whatsoever. The connection with a spiritual concept that you're asserting was unravelled several decades ago. You appear not to have noticed because the people doing the unravelling were still vaguely acceptable to you.
If you want to create a distinction between 'civil marriage' and 'religious marriage' then I wouldn't have a problem with that. In a very large number of countries the two are already completely separate - it's an odd quirk of the history of Britain and its colonies that the religious ceremony is recognised for civil purposes. There are plenty of countries where the state won't pay the slightest attention to a church ceremony.
But in that case you'll have a darn hard task persuading anyone in those countries, or the over 50% previously referred to here, that the word 'marriage' specifically relates to the religious ceremony. You're going to have to share it and add an adjective to it to emphasise that you're involved in the 'spiritual' version.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sorry. I thought you were using quotes because you were quoting me, since you were using the exact words I used in the post you were responding to. How does one distinguish between "scare quotes" and "quote quotes"?
Quotes around individual words are rarely "quote quotes". If they are, then it is usually obvious from context, as in 'you said "x"'.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not to go all meta on you, but while there may be a difference between principle and practice in principle, there is none in practice in this particular case. Legal inequality between men and women under marital law is traditional in both principle and practice.
This is simply false, as far as Christianity is concerned. There is no principle of legal inequality of the sexes in Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And who said anything about the 1950s? Surely the 1850s are just as traditional, or the 1150s.
The further back one goes, the less easy it is to make meaningful comparisons. The middle ages certainly weren't just about suppressing and exploiting women (apart from Hollywood movies and feminist rants). Wikipedia gives some decent pointers. Arguably, the lot of women started to deteriorate toward the end of the middle ages, and it took quite a while for the pendulum to swing the other way again.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It was pretty clear to those who established the "traditional" legal regimes dealing with marriage that husbands and wives were not equal in the eyes of the law, either in "principle" or in "practice". (Guess which kind of quotes those are!) Claiming "otherwise" is "revisionist".
These are all scare quotes, of course. It is unlikely though that they were all appropriate, as is obvious from implicit and explicit context.
It would be revisionist to claim that women always had the same legal rights as men concerning marriage in Christian lands. It is not revisionist to point out that such inequalities cannot actually be motivated by Christian principles. This is so irrespective of whether the people back then explicitly made such a connection. People are always capable of error. To revise policy based on a better understanding of principle is not revisionist, but simply prudent.
That said, I think modernity is kidding itself in thinking that it has found "the solution". What we have arrived at is pretty much a policy of ignoring gender differences and privileging career over child raising. There is little doubt that is untenable in the long run.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually, I'm not.
I think you are a Protestant atheist. It doesn't particularly matter whether you or you parents in fact ever were Protestant. Your thinking about religion is largely Protestant, even though it is in denial rather than affirmation.
Case in point, your idea that something written by the NT would be an "explicit" Divine command whereas something stated by Tradition at best an "implicit" one is deeply Protestant, and not at all Catholic (nor Orthodox, nor for that matter sensible...).
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That said, I think modernity is kidding itself in thinking that it has found "the solution". What we have arrived at is pretty much a policy of ignoring gender differences and privileging career over child raising. There is little doubt that is untenable in the long run.
Hugh Mackay has done a lot of very interesting research into social trends in Australia.
Back in 2006 he noticed that while Australian men were increasingly supportive of women working they weren't doing any more housework. (Survey by the Bureau of Statistics titled "How Australians Use Their Time", undertaken in 2006. “Men do not spend a single minute more a day on domestic duties than they did a decade and a half ago, while women have scaled back their chores by 10 minutes a day.”)
Married australian men are, I think, fairly typical of men in general. They like the idea of the increased income their wives provide but they are not prepared to change their lifestyles at all to compensate.
I'm not thinking of gay marriage now, but rather human rights in general - we must never forget that it is a zero sum game. I think that price should be worth paying but we need to be honest about it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is simply false, as far as Christianity is concerned. There is no principle of legal inequality of the sexes in Christianity.
<snip>
It would be revisionist to claim that women always had the same legal rights as men concerning marriage in Christian lands. It is not revisionist to point out that such inequalities cannot actually be motivated by Christian principles. This is so irrespective of whether the people back then explicitly made such a connection. People are always capable of error. To revise policy based on a better understanding of principle is not revisionist, but simply prudent.
<snip>
I think you are a Protestant atheist. It doesn't particularly matter whether you or you parents in fact ever were Protestant. Your thinking about religion is largely Protestant, even though it is in denial rather than affirmation.
Case in point, your idea that something written by the NT would be an "explicit" Divine command whereas something stated by Tradition at best an "implicit" one is deeply Protestant, and not at all Catholic (nor Orthodox, nor for that matter sensible...).
The way your premises shift seems intellectually dishonest. You consider Tradition to be legitimate in the case of super-secret decoder ring words of Jesus no one else knows about, but the much more well-documented Tradition of women's legal inequality is not, for reasons never explained beyond your personal preferences. The idea that "[t]his is so irrespective of whether the people back then explicitly made such a connection" is a blatant "No True Scotsman" obfuscation. Either appealing to Tradition is a valid way of determining Christian teaching, or it isn't. Swapping back and forth to suit your preferred outcome is dishonest.
And you completely miss my point about Protestantism. Despite paying lip service to the rejection of Tradition in favor of a "Bible Only" approach, they're still hip-deep in Tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm not thinking of gay marriage now, but rather human rights in general - we must never forget that it is a zero sum game. I think that price should be worth paying but we need to be honest about it.
I'm pretty sure that human rights isn't a zero sum game. Just because you stop the torture of prisoners (for example) in one prison it doesn't necessarily follow logically that a another prison somewhere will, because of your actions, start torturing its prisoners. It's the great conceit of those opposing same-sex marriage that giving same-sex couples the same treatment under the law as opposite-sex couples somehow diminishes the rights of opposite-sex couples, though how this happens is never really explained.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The way your premises shift seems intellectually dishonest. You consider Tradition to be legitimate in the case of super-secret decoder ring words of Jesus no one else knows about, but the much more well-documented Tradition of women's legal inequality is not, for reasons never explained beyond your personal preferences.
Bollocks. The tradition I consider as definitive concerning Christianity is quite likely the best documented, most systematic and least equivocal religious tradition in the entire history of mankind. I'm talking of course of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the magisterium, and to some degree also of her acts of governance, e.g., Canon Law.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The idea that "[t]his is so irrespective of whether the people back then explicitly made such a connection" is a blatant "No True Scotsman" obfuscation. Either appealing to Tradition is a valid way of determining Christian teaching, or it isn't. Swapping back and forth to suit your preferred outcome is dishonest.
Again, you are such a Protestant atheist... There is tradition, and then there's tradition. A rather obvious contemporary example is the use of contraception. Depending on how you define "tradition", it is either totally forbidden or accepted and common (in at least the third generation...) among Western Catholics. And this sort of self-contradiction is not just limited to the laity either. However, I've told you what tradition I consider normative and I think you will find that I rarely "swap back and forth" from that, and never consciously so.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And you completely miss my point about Protestantism. Despite paying lip service to the rejection of Tradition in favor of a "Bible Only" approach, they're still hip-deep in Tradition.
In a tradition, perhaps. Most definitely not in my tradition. Protestantism really is a different beast.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's the great conceit of those opposing same-sex marriage that giving same-sex couples the same treatment under the law as opposite-sex couples somehow diminishes the rights of opposite-sex couples, though how this happens is never really explained.
What could be simpler? The same money/perks spread over more people generally means less for each. The state used to invest into marriages basically because in the long run most marriages would pay back the state amply by raising the next generation of citizens. Of course, there may be nowadays other concerns to do with insurances and whatnot, for which it is totally sensible to provide more general "relationship rules". Hence my support (in general) for what Tasmania seems to be doing. Furthermore, the advent of the DINKs and the invention of "child benefits" puts blanket support for all marriages into question. However, the basic point remains: if the state determines significant handouts by who is married and who not, then extending the definition of marriage to more people is to the disadvantage of those who are already considered married (under the realistic assumption that there is not more to go around).
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
The non-religious problem with polyandry / gamy is that the ability to have multiple spouses / households is dependent on wealth. If the wealthy are more likely to be in a multiple marriage, that means that the less-wealthy are less likely to be able to find a partner. Current polygamous communities routinely expel their excess single young males. Furthermore, benefits that accrue to married persons will disproportionately benefit those in multiple relationships e.g. tax breaks and government entitlements.
Another problem is that it creates a contractual and actuarial nightmare for pensions, all forms of insurance, etc. And yet another problem would be having to completely revamp all existing family law to apply to multiple spouses and their children - something that as others have pointed out, is not necessary for same-sex marriages. OliviaG
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
Yes, if the biblical model of marriage is the cleaving together of a man and women, that cleaving together can readily be applied to other couples. Marriage has religious and secular roles. These have coincided for donkeys' years. I think it's a mistake to assume that these two roles are necessarily the same or have the same outworkings. For example, the Christ-like model of sacrificial leadership with a male rights over property.
The Christian wedding ceremony has conferred the status of a secular marriage. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but I think some religious groups have to register their marriage separate from their religious ceremony.
The secular meaning of marriage is detaching from the religious one. Indeed, the British government has largely given up on marriage, but is keen on stable relationships. In some ways, this focuses on cleaving together rather than on ceremonial observance/status, although personally I think marriage is the best means of cleaving together we have available to us.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure that human rights isn't a zero sum game. Just because you stop the torture of prisoners (for example) in one prison it doesn't necessarily follow logically that a another prison somewhere will, because of your actions, start torturing its prisoners. It's the great conceit of those opposing same-sex marriage that giving same-sex couples the same treatment under the law as opposite-sex couples somehow diminishes the rights of opposite-sex couples, though how this happens is never really explained.
As I said I wasn't thinking of same-sex marriage when I said that but you do seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I meant by a zero sum game.
When people campaign for equal rights the assumption is always that, for example, pay for the disempowered will be raised to that of the privileged. No one argues that the pay for the privileged should be brought down to match it. And yet there is outrage if their taxes are increased to pay for it.
I'm actually arguing in favour of this equality, I'm just pointing out that everyone needs to 'pay' for it.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is no such thing as a "personal morality". This is the case whether one believes in natural moral law (as I do) or in "social contract" moral law (as most people do nowadays). The difference between the two is merely that the former is universal and the latter only society-wide. The very point of morality is to be interpersonal, because it sets norms of behaviour among people. For example, murder does not become good if I individually happen to believe that it is.
Well, obviously I do not think the "social contract" exhausts the content of morality. I'm a Christian.
The "social contract" might, however, set limits to what aspects of morality civil society can enforce. If, as is increasingly the case, the terms on which a society requires compliance from its citizens includes the provision "we will not constrain your private sexual behaviour provided that you do not violate these accepted norms of consent", then that takes a whole lot of personal choices out of the sphere of social regulation. I'm not arguing that it takes them out of the sphere of morality.
The murder example works for me. Conventionally, most societies consider that human life is valuable, "sacred" if you like, and imprisons for long periods those who wantonly destroy it. That is a principled position which commands wide support.
But suppose that our society lost that principle about the sanctity of life, although it still recognised that the widespread and increasing practice of terminating persons that one happens not to like was creating all sorts of practical difficulties in daily life. What should that society do? Regain a sense that murder is wrong? Ideally, yes, but if that is impossible, and all attempts to argue that life is sacred are met with open scorn and ridicule, is there anything else that can morally be tried?
Wouldn't the attempt to regulate murder according to the principles of prudence and self-control (to which our hypothetical society assigns a high place) be better than doing nothing? Those may not be the highest ethics, but there are still valid ethics, and they do indeed offer a helpful and workable way to regulate a society even if, from the outside, we would prefer it to aspire to a better understanding of right behaviour.
That is our society from the perspective of one particular sort of sexual ethics. We have, as a whole, lost the "right use of sex" principle altogether. It might be better if we could recover that, but we aren't in fact going to recover it any time soon, because most of us think it is just silly, even if we acknowledge the harm that unregulated sexual conduct might do. So we are right to mitigate that harm by applying such valid principles which we do know and do generally accept - that people are to be valued, treated as equals, have their choices respected insofar as they do not violate the rights of others, and not subjected to coercion or force. Those principles may not be the absolute best ones to regulate sex, but they are, as far as they go, helpful and workable, and we should certainly apply them, if no better ones command general approval.
quote:
If gay marriage is a valid choice, then it must be morally good or neutral, at least in this society, if not universally.
If you mean "valid morally", then yes, I agree. But I can, for the reasons above, disapprove of a moral choice and at the same time disapprove of state interference on the matter.
Can I then argue that the state should not merely allow, but positively support and enable moral choices which I think bad? Yes, because I think that consistency of principle and fairness of treatment are important virtues in ordering society which can, in some circumstances, be more certain than what is substantively right by natural moral law.
Thus while you may know, by revelation contained in Church tradition, that homosexuality is wrong according to the natural moral law, it is perfectly obvious that modern Western society in general does not know that, and does not defer to your opinion on the matter. Therefore it cannot rightly and fairly deny equal treatment to homosexuals. It has no basis in principle for doing so. Society cannot, with integrity, say on the one hand "the law won't get involved in consensual sexual relationships between capable adults and does not impose a moral code that would distinguish straight and gay relationships" and on the other withhold from gays benefits it offers to straights without some principled reason for the distinction. A principled reason that, for all that we may defer judgment, the gays are actually wrong and against God, is ruled out by the fact that society has already limited its competence to decide such a question.
quote:
Firstly, if we got from A to B morally, somehow, then there is nothing that speaks per se against going back from B to A morally, somehow. Moral development is not a one way street. Secondly, the lived practice of morals is based on "case law" more than principles. A big deal is made out of principles mostly when there is an attempt to overthrow this "case law". However, people can and do live their entire lives quite happily with moral "case law" that is incoherent in principles. The idea that morals are somehow "all or nothing" is practically speaking false, there is plenty of give there for more gradual change.
I have you there on my specialist subject. "Case law" IS the law of principles. It can't work any other way. A particular case always has unique facts, and therefore no application to any other particular case with different unique facts, UNLESS you abstract some principled guidance from the one and apply it to the other. Case law with incoherent principles is bad law - it is a lawyer's job to make sense of past decisions (which can include arguing that past decisions were mistaken) on the grounds of finding and applying consistent principles. If it is absolutely impossible to discern any principle at all, there is no such sense to be found, and nothing which could even be described as case law.
A individual person's moral life may be unexamined internally of course (and no less moral for that) but a society deciding between competing moral claims is not in the same position as an individual making a moral choice. The individual has, for better or worse, criteria of good and bad. The society is deciding, and compromising, between different conceptions of good and bad. It has, to be fair, to look at what principles support the various possible choices, and what support those principles have.
Of course, it may be possible to construct a society and its legal system on incoherent moral principles, but I would prefer not to. I would prefer a society to be consistent and fair by some rational conception of what morality requires, than that it inconsistently and unfairly apply some part of what I consider to be a superior conception of morality. There is, as far as I can see, NO principled objection to legal gay marriage founded on any principle that would command general social acceptance. A Catholic can, of course, find such principles quite easily, Catholic tradition has a view on the right use of sex which does distinguish, as a matter of principle, what gay and straight people do in bed. A Catholic society might pass laws to reflect that (subject to the questions of liberty and justice in imposing these on non-Catholic minorities). A non-Catholic society cannot do so with consistency or fairness if it has not made those principles its own.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I said I wasn't thinking of same-sex marriage when I said that but you do seem to be deliberately misunderstanding what I meant by a zero sum game.
That's why I picked the example of torturing prisoners; it's a human rights issue not related to same-sex marriage. The standard definition of "zero-sum game" is a system in which any gain by one party is offset by a loss of equal magnitude by some other party or parties. Thus, if human rights is a zero-sum game then ceasing the torture of one prisoner must require that some other prisoner must start to be tortured. (Or doubling the amount of torture applied to a prisoner already being tortured.) My point is that this is clearly not so and that human rights does not fall within the definition of a zero-sum game.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm actually arguing in favour of this equality, I'm just pointing out that everyone needs to 'pay' for it.
Which is a different argument than the one you made using the technical term "zero-sum game". Saying 'some parties may benefit more than others, and some will actually lose out' is not (necessarily) the same as a zero-sum game.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Well, kind of. The fact is that in the UK with an established church, the word marriage is inextricably linked with the spiritual concept of marriage as the church has taught it.
I think that only England has an established church. The other parts of the United Kingdom (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) do not.
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Now the state wants to redefine that in ways that the church does not accept (as yet!)
Legally, I do believe that people should be able to make whatever contractual relations they wish. It's calling it marriage, a word so bound up with concepts taken from the Christian worldview that I have a problem with. Of course, I understand that for advocates of gay marriage that's precisely the why the term is important too: I don't think many would be happy with a legal setup that gives all the same legal obligations and rights as marriage but is called something different.
Of course, differences between civil and religious definitions of marriage have coexisted within the same system for quite some time now. Just ask the Catholic Church if remarriage after divorce is really a "marriage". But people only seem to want to set up separate legal categories when homosexuals are involved, as I've pointed out elsewhere.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The way your premises shift seems intellectually dishonest. You consider Tradition to be legitimate in the case of super-secret decoder ring words of Jesus no one else knows about, but the much more well-documented Tradition of women's legal inequality is not, for reasons never explained beyond your personal preferences.
Bollocks. The tradition I consider as definitive concerning Christianity is quite likely the best documented, most systematic and least equivocal religious tradition in the entire history of mankind. I'm talking of course of the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, the magisterium, and to some degree also of her acts of governance, e.g., Canon Law.
Right. The organization with the all male leadership and a history of witch burning. I'm not going to simply take your bald assertion that the Catholic Church has alwasy been in favor of women's legal equality, beyond paying lip service to the idea of equality before God and ignoring any real-world problems. Examples please.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's the great conceit of those opposing same-sex marriage that giving same-sex couples the same treatment under the law as opposite-sex couples somehow diminishes the rights of opposite-sex couples, though how this happens is never really explained.
What could be simpler? The same money/perks spread over more people generally means less for each.
So you're going to argue that if Steve is allowed to authorize an emergency appendectomy for his husband Adam it means that June won't be allowed to authorize an emergency bypass for her husband Ward? And if both operations fail, having Steve recognized as Adam's default heir means June can't be recognized as Ward's heir because the state has used up all it's "recognized heir" points? That's just bullshit!
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... I'm actually arguing in favour of this equality, I'm just pointing out that everyone needs to 'pay' for it.
So in the case of same-sex marriage, who is "paying", and what? As Croesus pointed out, calling it a "zero-sum game" implies that for every same-sex marriage allowed, an opposite=sex marriage will be prevented, or lost, or negated, or something... which is absurd, right? So what's the cost? Increased competition for wedding venues? OliviaG
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... I'm actually arguing in favour of this equality, I'm just pointing out that everyone needs to 'pay' for it.
So in the case of same-sex marriage, who is "paying", and what? As Croesus pointed out, calling it a "zero-sum game" implies that for every same-sex marriage allowed, an opposite=sex marriage will be prevented, or lost, or negated, or something... which is absurd, right? So what's the cost? Increased competition for wedding venues? OliviaG
Clearly, the bottom will fall out of the wedding planning market if all the fabulous gay wedding planners are off planning their own weddings instead. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Of course, differences between civil and religious definitions of marriage have coexisted within the same system for quite some time now. Just ask the Catholic Church if remarriage after divorce is really a "marriage". But people only seem to want to set up separate legal categories when homosexuals are involved, as I've pointed out elsewhere.
Yes, you're right, you are repeating yourself, but actually, that's not true. For example, I (and many Christians I know) don't think two people living together of any sex should be given the same legal recognition as a married couple (as was suggested in Britain earlier this year), and I don't think partnerships of more than two should be called marriages, along with most members of theist religions.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which is a different argument than the one you made using the technical term "zero-sum game". Saying 'some parties may benefit more than others, and some will actually lose out' is not (necessarily) the same as a zero-sum game.
We are obviously mean two completely different things by zero-sum game.
All definitions I've come across refer to participants in the same 'game'. When injustice is put right this always involves the oppressor in someway 'paying' to put the injustice right.
If sweatshop owners were to pay their workers a just wage then their profits will reduce. I'm not suggesting that we should feel sorry for sweatshop owners just pointing out that it is a zero sum game. If the rich help the poor (as I'd argue they must) then they will become less rich.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So you're going to argue that if Steve is allowed to authorize an emergency appendectomy for his husband Adam it means that June won't be allowed to authorize an emergency bypass for her husband Ward? And if both operations fail, having Steve recognized as Adam's default heir means June can't be recognized as Ward's heir because the state has used up all it's "recognized heir" points? That's just bullshit!
Did you read IngoB's post? He gave a very clear example of taxation and government support. This (above) has got nothing to do with what he actually said.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... I'm actually arguing in favour of this equality, I'm just pointing out that everyone needs to 'pay' for it.
So in the case of same-sex marriage, who is "paying", and what? As Croesus pointed out, calling it a "zero-sum game" implies that for every same-sex marriage allowed, an opposite=sex marriage will be prevented, or lost, or negated, or something... which is absurd, right? So what's the cost? Increased competition for wedding venues? OliviaG
I thought IngoB had already given an example of this.
Currently most governments give tax breaks and financial incentives to married couples.
(BTW It is interesting to think why they do this - it seems as if most western governments link marriage strongly with children and childcare even if some shipmates do not.)
There is a finite pot of money; if these same financial incentives are given to same-sex couples too then, as IngoB says, there will be less money to go round.
Now, as I have said several times before, this is not a reason against doing it. If an injustice is being put right then society should pay for it.
I just think that a lot of the rhetoric ignore this about society.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which is a different argument than the one you made using the technical term "zero-sum game". Saying 'some parties may benefit more than others, and some will actually lose out' is not (necessarily) the same as a zero-sum game.
We are obviously mean two completely different things by zero-sum game.
All definitions I've come across refer to participants in the same 'game'. When injustice is put right this always involves the oppressor in someway 'paying' to put the injustice right.
If sweatshop owners were to pay their workers a just wage then their profits will reduce. I'm not suggesting that we should feel sorry for sweatshop owners just pointing out that it is a zero sum game. If the rich help the poor (as I'd argue they must) then they will become less rich.
Um, that's a sum. It's not a zero sum. A positive and a negative don't add up to zero unless the positive and the negative are equal.
The only 'negative' I can see in recognition of same sex marriage is that you can no longer regard your heterosexual relationship as superior. The problem is, that people have a tendency to argue in language that suggests that a heterosexual relationship would no longer be VALID. Which is nonsense.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
... I'm actually arguing in favour of this equality, I'm just pointing out that everyone needs to 'pay' for it.
So in the case of same-sex marriage, who is "paying", and what? As Croesus pointed out, calling it a "zero-sum game" implies that for every same-sex marriage allowed, an opposite=sex marriage will be prevented, or lost, or negated, or something... which is absurd, right? So what's the cost? Increased competition for wedding venues? OliviaG
I thought IngoB had already given an example of this.
Currently most governments give tax breaks and financial incentives to married couples.
(BTW It is interesting to think why they do this - it seems as if most western governments link marriage strongly with children and childcare even if some shipmates do not.)
There is a finite pot of money; if these same financial incentives are given to same-sex couples too then, as IngoB says, there will be less money to go round.
Now, as I have said several times before, this is not a reason against doing it. If an injustice is being put right then society should pay for it.
I just think that a lot of the rhetoric ignore this about society.
Okay, now THIS is genuinely hilarious.
Because I don't know whether or not you were paying attention, but when all the other Australian laws were reformed to recognise same-sex couples (as de facto couples, in the same way that de facto heterosexual couples are recognised), it saved the Government money.
That's right. SAVED! It was actually CHEAPER to recognise people as couples because there are a considerable number of benefits where the couple rate is not merely twice the single rate. The savings in those areas more than offset the costs of allowing same sex couples access to 'couples' benefits that they previously couldn't get.
It's all there in the Budget papers. I should know. I worked on it. I went through all that stuff because of all the fears there were about what opening up the coffers to an extra 50 or 60 thousand couples might do, in case there were a whole lot more extra ones hiding in the corners that we didn't know about.
So your pot of money wasn't impacted, okay?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think that only England has an established church. The other parts of the United Kingdom (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) do not.
Scotland does have an established church, the Church of Scotland, which is a different denomination (Presbyterian) from the Church of England.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But suppose that our society lost that principle about the sanctity of life, although it still recognised that the widespread and increasing practice of terminating persons that one happens not to like was creating all sorts of practical difficulties in daily life. What should that society do? Regain a sense that murder is wrong? Ideally, yes, but if that is impossible, and all attempts to argue that life is sacred are met with open scorn and ridicule, is there anything else that can morally be tried?
No, because this is not how it works. Murder is never considered neutral or good by any society. Because murder is defined as evil killing, whereas no society has ever defined all killing as evil (i.e., murder). The question is hence always: is killing X murder, or a lawful killing? To argue or legislate on the basis that murder is neutral or good is however simply insane, psychopathy. As for the question whether a frontal or a lateral attack on a wrong distinction between murder and killing is appropriate, I do not think that a single answer can be given. If the SS officer is about to drag your Jewish neighbor off to concentration camp, then you may wish to argue for his life on the grounds that he is an engineer not easily replaced. If you are the government of England issuing a public condemnation of Nazi policy, then you probably do not want to announce that you would be satisfied if the Nazis just stopped killing useful Jews.
It is simply not true that "mutual consent" has replaced "right sexual mechanics" as moral criterion. Rather, it is simply the case that the latter has been all but eliminated as a criterion. Mutual consent of course has always been part of the "good sex" definition. In fact, the marriage contract used to be (and for RCs still formally is!) primarily about the two parties granting each other the right to sex. Marriage classically is a "mutual consent contract". Though of course modern people also find the concept of any kind of contractual obligation to have sex quite inconceivable...
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But I can, for the reasons above, disapprove of a moral choice and at the same time disapprove of state interference on the matter.
Sure, it can be prudent for the state (and indeed the Church!) to not prosecute certain evils. However, the state cannot promote any evil. If gay marriage is an evil, then the state may not recognize it in any form or fashion. Under the assumption of evil, it may well be nevertheless prudent for the state to not punish gays claiming to be married.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Therefore it cannot rightly and fairly deny equal treatment to homosexuals. It has no basis in principle for doing so.
That's not the case, of course. The principle is very simple: homosexual couples do not produce children, heterosexual couples do, and the common good requires children. Hence the state most definitely can privilege heterosexual over homosexual relationship, without the slightest moral problem in sight. Of course, these days there may be other reasons to privilege relationships. And indeed, given the recent reluctance of many heterosexual couples to have children and raise them together, the case for privileging them has become accordingly weaker. But there simply is no full equality possible at a principle level between marriage and gay relationships, hence there is also no particular reason why the state would have to treat them equally.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Case law with incoherent principles is bad law - it is a lawyer's job to make sense of past decisions (which can include arguing that past decisions were mistaken) on the grounds of finding and applying consistent principles. If it is absolutely impossible to discern any principle at all, there is no such sense to be found, and nothing which could even be described as case law.
Way to miss the point... People are not lawyers, mostly. There is no strong drive toward moral consistency outside of "professional bodies", like indeed the judiciary or for that matter the Church. This is the point really. People are by and large not conscious of some clear moral principles to which they keep with steely resolve. People muddle by on rough moral reckoning by rules of thumb and exemplary cases. Hence changing the morals of the populace is more like selling a product than like a philosophical death-match. We got from moral A to moral B on one sales pitch, and we can get back on a different sales pitch. That's just the way it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The society is deciding, and compromising, between different conceptions of good and bad.
Well, if you ever meet "society", please send them around for tea. I will have a chat with them about moral principle. Or in other words: ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not going to simply take your bald assertion that the Catholic Church has alwasy been in favor of women's legal equality, beyond paying lip service to the idea of equality before God and ignoring any real-world problems. Examples please.
Marriage, which happens to be what we are actually talking about. There is no official RC teaching requiring legal inequality between men and women in marriage. (And that is not a claim that Catholic marriages de facto have been legally equal throughout all of history everywhere.)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What could be simpler? The same money/perks spread over more people generally means less for each.
So you're going to argue that if Steve is allowed to authorize an emergency appendectomy for his husband Adam it means that June won't be allowed to authorize an emergency bypass for her husband Ward? And if both operations fail, having Steve recognized as Adam's default heir means June can't be recognized as Ward's heir because the state has used up all it's "recognized heir" points? That's just bullshit!
It sure is bullshit, because of course it is your example, not mine. Furthermore, your example is a direct, blatant and undoubtedly intentional misrepresentation of what I said. For what followed the one sentence of my paragraph that you quote? This: "The state used to invest into marriages basically because in the long run most marriages would pay back the state amply by raising the next generation of citizens. Of course, there may be nowadays other concerns to do with insurances and whatnot, for which it is totally sensible to provide more general "relationship rules". Hence my support (in general) for what Tasmania seems to be doing."
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because I don't know whether or not you were paying attention, but when all the other Australian laws were reformed to recognise same-sex couples (as de facto couples, in the same way that de facto heterosexual couples are recognised), it saved the Government money. That's right. SAVED! It was actually CHEAPER to recognise people as couples because there are a considerable number of benefits where the couple rate is not merely twice the single rate. The savings in those areas more than offset the costs of allowing same sex couples access to 'couples' benefits that they previously couldn't get. ... So your pot of money wasn't impacted, okay?
If it is true that becoming a couple means a net gain for the state due to handing out less money/perks, then of course this implies that it is a net loss for the couple in receiving money/perks. Hence if the new law is "fair" to heterosexual an homosexual couples, then all this is saying is that the Australian government is actively discouraging people from becoming couples. All couples, including heterosexual ones. Why the Australian government would punish marriages financially I don't know, I consider this to be a strict case of governmental insanity. That is not to say that it is not the case, governments behave insanely with some frequency.
At any rate, this is not at all a counter-example to what I said. Indeed, my point is logically unassailable: a finite pot distributed over more people means less for each, or if you like, the same distributed over more people requires a bigger pot. That this is not happening in Australia, according to you, simply indicates that there is no net distribution in the first place.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Um, that's a sum. It's not a zero sum.
Sigh.
If this really bothers you then why not start a new thread on the correct usage of the term 'zero sum game'? (If you do I certainly won't be joining in because I can't see how it relates to this thread since you appear to understand what I mean.)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
I was going to reply to Orfeo but I see that IngoB has got there first.
It doesn't happen often but ... his reply is exactly what I was about to write!
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If it is true that becoming a couple means a net gain for the state due to handing out less money/perks, then of course this implies that it is a net loss for the couple in receiving money/perks. Hence if the new law is "fair" to heterosexual an homosexual couples, then all this is saying is that the Australian government is actively discouraging people from becoming couples. All couples, including heterosexual ones. Why the Australian government would punish marriages financially I don't know, I consider this to be a strict case of governmental insanity. That is not to say that it is not the case, governments behave insanely with some frequency.
At any rate, this is not at all a counter-example to what I said. Indeed, my point is logically unassailable: a finite pot distributed over more people means less for each, or if you like, the same distributed over more people requires a bigger pot. That this is not happening in Australia, according to you, simply indicates that there is no net distribution in the first place.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because I don't know whether or not you were paying attention, but when all the other Australian laws were reformed to recognise same-sex couples (as de facto couples, in the same way that de facto heterosexual couples are recognised), it saved the Government money. That's right. SAVED! It was actually CHEAPER to recognise people as couples because there are a considerable number of benefits where the couple rate is not merely twice the single rate. The savings in those areas more than offset the costs of allowing same sex couples access to 'couples' benefits that they previously couldn't get. ... So your pot of money wasn't impacted, okay?
If it is true that becoming a couple means a net gain for the state due to handing out less money/perks, then of course this implies that it is a net loss for the couple in receiving money/perks. Hence if the new law is "fair" to heterosexual an homosexual couples, then all this is saying is that the Australian government is actively discouraging people from becoming couples. All couples, including heterosexual ones. Why the Australian government would punish marriages financially I don't know, I consider this to be a strict case of governmental insanity. That is not to say that it is not the case, governments behave insanely with some frequency.
At any rate, this is not at all a counter-example to what I said. Indeed, my point is logically unassailable: a finite pot distributed over more people means less for each, or if you like, the same distributed over more people requires a bigger pot. That this is not happening in Australia, according to you, simply indicates that there is no net distribution in the first place.
Except, Ingo, people don't move in or out of 'the pot' based on whether they are married or not. The pot of money the government has to distribute is for all Australians. Hopefully on the basis of need.
As to why they are 'punishing' people for being in couples, have you not noticed that the cost of living PER PERSON is generally lower if you're in a couple? The financial need PER PERSON is less. Again, there are plenty of costs which are less PER PERSON when there's two of you - goodness knows, almost every time I book a hotel room as a single person it costs me exactly the same as if I was one half of a couple, so in that case the cost for a couple is usually half PER PERSON.
So I doubt you'll find there's any 'punishment' going on whatsoever. The couples rate is less PER PERSON because the need - the cost of living - is less PER PERSON.
Your unassailable logic is very, very assailable Ingo. And that's just on your response to me, never mind some of the enormous holes in your response to others.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I mean, the idea that the government has a fixed 'pot for married people' and that that might be a reason to stop new marriages is just MIND-NUMBINGLY ridiculous. A marriage creates a new relationship. It doesn't create a net increase in the population of a country.
ESPECIALLY not one of these funny homosexual infertile marriages.
By the same logic, I should be urging all my eligible heterosexual friends to get married as quickly as possible, leaving myself a larger slice of the 'pot for single people'. Heck, if we can get ALL you straights to pair up and marry, the gays will be rich, I tell you, RICH!!!
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I'm seeing all sorts of exciting implications for the money pot logic. The latest one to cross my mind is that it's best to discourage other people having children, because that way your child can benefit from a larger slice of the 'pot for educating children'. Which is fixed.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So I doubt you'll find there's any 'punishment' going on whatsoever. The couples rate is less PER PERSON because the need - the cost of living - is less PER PERSON.
So what you are saying is that there is in fact no money/perks from the government for marriages (of whichever kind). Instead, there is money/perks for people "in need" by some definition; and since people in a relationship are typically less "in need" by that definition, they get less money. Hence the Australian government de facto pays less to couples than to singles, which I consider an insane policy, and whatever idealistic motivations politicians may have had (or pretended to have) for allowing gay relationships on the same footing as marriage, under these insane circumstances this also allows the government to claw back money/perks from those committing to a gay relationship. Nice.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Your unassailable logic is very, very assailable Ingo. And that's just on your response to me, never mind some of the enormous holes in your response to others.
So far you have merely demonstrated that you do not understand division and multiplication.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The latest one to cross my mind is that it's best to discourage other people having children, because that way your child can benefit from a larger slice of the 'pot for educating children'. Which is fixed.
If it were fixed, and if governments were in the habit of sharing savings directly with stakeholders, then indeed one could gain short term advantage this way. Unfortunately, in such situations government tend to redirect surplus funds immediately and adjust the budget down for the next term. And no, this process is not symmetric. An increase in numbers may be met with increased funding sometimes, but typically much more reluctantly so. The reason for this asymmetry is - once more - pot logic. If education grabs a bigger slice of the total budget, then there's less left for other concerns.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think that only England has an established church. The other parts of the United Kingdom (Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) do not.
Scotland does have an established church, the Church of Scotland, which is a different denomination (Presbyterian) from the Church of England.
Sorry Dafyd, but the Church of Scotland is not an established church. It gave up establishment in 1921 in order to re-unite with the non-established United Free Church of Scotland. Wikipedia has a good summary here. Rather, the Church of Scotland is a national church, in that it maintains geographic coverage of the whole of Scotland through a parish system. But we have absolutely no role in state government, and have no access to the House of Lords, for example. In turn, neither the state nor the monarchy has any say in the governance of the church beyond that accorded to any church member.
Interestingly, the Scottish Executive has recently been discussing the legalisation of gay marriage in Scotland, to the extent that it looks increasingly likely to go through within the next few years. The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has been vocal and proactive in its opposition, while the Episcopal Church of Scotland has defended the right of the Scottish Executive to legislate on this matter.
Currently embroiled in its own contentious debate, and with a moratorium on the public expression of opinion on the matter, the Church of Scotland has so far been silent. But I think even our very conservative members, while they might preach furiously against such a change, would be very wary of trying directly to influence any state decision. Long used to separation of church and state, I suspect that most in the Kirk would recognise the right of the state to legislate as it saw fit, as long as it did not try to interfere with church polity, and as long a new law or policy did not in itself entail an injustice. Though I may yet be proved wrong on this.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
Sorry Dafyd, but the Church of Scotland is not an established church. It gave up establishment in 1921 in order to re-unite with the non-established United Free Church of Scotland.
I stand corrected. I knew that there was a fuss over the disestablishment of the Church of Wales around that time - I'm surprised I didn't know about the Church of Scotland.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I thought IngoB had already given an example of this.
Currently most governments give tax breaks and financial incentives to married couples.
(BTW It is interesting to think why they do this - it seems as if most western governments link marriage strongly with children and childcare even if some shipmates do not.)
I posted this earlier but no one picked up on it.
I'd be interested in shipmates' opinions as to why they think most governments give financial incentives to couples?
(I realise that Orfeo seems to be claiming that the Australian government gives incentives to people to remain single but I still don't understand what he is saying about the Aussie federal government.)
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on
:
UK policy has shifted away from supporting marriage. Couples could elect to be taxed as a couple, enabling a non-working wife's tax-free allowance to be utilised by a working husband. People are taxed individually so that no longer happens. Opponents of the old system say that it gave husbands too much control over money. Partly for that reason, a family allowance was paid to mothers directly.
The abolition of the tax breaks was used to fund child benefit (a universal benefit paid according to the number of children). There are also various forms of payments directed to those in need. Critics of this say that it incetivises need and discourages stable family units. The various benefits are being reformed into a unified 'credit'.
The political consensus is not to favour marriage but to encourage family units of all sorts. Some conservatives want marriage to be promoted/recognised in the tax system but the Tory leadership gives the impression of finding this embarrassing (in the same way New Labour was embarrassed about socialist stuff).
Benefits of marriage are now mainly related to civil law matters such as intestacy, divorce law. The Law Commission, concerned at increasing numbers of cohabiting couples leading to problems with the lack of legal protection on/management of break ups, proposed legal protections, which I suppose would have been a form of statutorily imposed marriage. The government has rejected this, I suppose because some couples choose not to get married and this would take away choice.
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
I know a number of people (including a couple about to get married) who were quite insulted by the conservative promise of a mini tax break. (Was it 75p a week ?)
I think they felt that they weren't getting married for money. In that sense, you have to wonder about the point of encouraging marriage through financial incentives, are people who marry because it makes them financially better off really more likely to stay together ? Or will you just create more divorces.
[ 23. October 2011, 20:44: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
UK policy has shifted away from supporting marriage.
That would be my guess too but since I haven't lived in the UK for a few years I'm interested in the views of current UK residents.
It was certainly my impression that this was the direction the government was taking though.
I remember a conversation I had on the 'phone with someone from the tax office about my tax return (about 10 years ago). They were explaining various changes and took great exception when I suggested that the changes would reduce the government's support of marriage. I couldn't see how else to interpret it though. What else are you doing when you withdraw a benefit?
quote:
Originally posted by tomsk:
The political consensus is not to favour marriage but to encourage family units of all sorts. Some conservatives want marriage to be promoted/recognised in the tax system but the Tory leadership gives the impression of finding this embarrassing (in the same way New Labour was embarrassed about socialist stuff).
I suppose that reflects the tensions in current political thinking. I've never voted Tory but those conservatives are seeking to preserve (return to?) the stance of previous governments in promoting marriage.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
In that sense, you have to wonder about the point of encouraging marriage through financial incentives, are people who marry because it makes them financially better off really more likely to stay together ? Or will you just create more divorces.
I wasn't thinking much about whether or not it is a good idea to encourage marriage with financial incentives. My point was just:
1. Most governments do / used to favour marriage.
2. Why do you think they did?
Posted by Think² (# 1984) on
:
Well, the original justification financially would have been that of course the woman was earning nothing or a lot less than the man - so there had to be enough money around to keep the family. This was the old justification for unequal pay - more for the married man because he would be supporting a wife and children on that salary and the wife would be earning - at best - pin money. Over time vestigial arrangements remained due tot he expectations this had created.
In the longer term, marriage is intimately connected with the control and inheritance of property. I think that basically, the state didn't give a toss about the state of a serf's marriage - but they cared quite a lot about what happened to the lord of the manor. And as you know - until fairly recently women were considered chattels in law.
So the short answer, is that the state has cared historically about the distribution of property and wealth. Now that is less tied to marital status, the state has become de facto less interested.
I doubt this is what representatives of the state would use as their justification at different historical periods - or even now - but I think you can see it functionally in how society is organised.
[ 23. October 2011, 22:16: Message edited by: Think² ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I thought IngoB had already given an example of this.
Currently most governments give tax breaks and financial incentives to married couples.
(BTW It is interesting to think why they do this - it seems as if most western governments link marriage strongly with children and childcare even if some shipmates do not.)
I posted this earlier but no one picked up on it.
I'd be interested in shipmates' opinions as to why they think most governments give financial incentives to couples?
(I realise that Orfeo seems to be claiming that the Australian government gives incentives to people to remain single but I still don't understand what he is saying about the Aussie federal government.)
Sigh. I did NOT say they 'give incentives to people to remain single'. I said that the budgetary effect of recognising same sex couples was a net gain to the budget. Taking into account all the effects in both directions.
As far as individual couples were concerned, some gained money and some lost money. Depending on their circumstances.
It irks me to have this vague generalisation about support for couples, because it's just not true. There's no payment out there that is an explicit reward for couples. There are all sorts of payments related to things like raising children, financially supporting a spouse (which is not the same thing as merely having a spouse), and so on.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PS If anyone cares, the basic figures are in the financial impact statement here (paragraph 5), but there's not a lot of detail in it:
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2008B00213/Explanatory%20Memorandum/Text
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I did NOT say they 'give incentives to people to remain single'. I said that the budgetary effect of recognising same sex couples was a net gain to the budget. Taking into account all the effects in both directions.
As far as individual couples were concerned, some gained money and some lost money. Depending on their circumstances.
Apologies, I put it the wrong way round.
What you said is that financial incentives for marriage have been removed.
I've not been in Australia long enough to know the history to this. I didn't pick up on it being an issue at the last federal election - how long ago did these changes happen?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is simply not true that "mutual consent" has replaced "right sexual mechanics" as moral criterion. Rather, it is simply the case that the latter has been all but eliminated as a criterion. Mutual consent of course has always been part of the "good sex" definition.
Both parts are (IMO) elements of the natural moral law, so I don't say that either has ever been completely neglected. But that the dominant ethic has changed I think is obvious.
Consider: In my parent's life-time, in the UK a spouse could sue in damages any person who induced his wife (or her husband) to live apart from him, or provided accommodation to her so that she could do so. A husband (not a wife) could sue in damages someone who had committed adultery with his wife. Mutually consenting male homosexual sex was a criminal offence. In my life-time, buggery of a consenting woman has been illegal. Different age of consent laws applied to straights and gays, and men could not be prosecuted for rape if they had sex with their wives without consent.
None of that is true now. It is, legally speaking, a different world.
quote:
Sure, it can be prudent for the state (and indeed the Church!) to not prosecute certain evils. However, the state cannot promote any evil. If gay marriage is an evil, then the state may not recognize it in any form or fashion.
Evil according to whom? It can't be the case that society cannot promote anything than a member of the community thinks evil, because that would paralyse government. A secular society cannot rationally take something to be "evil" because a religion says so, if it does not in fact consider itself subject to the teachings of that religion.
If the principle means anything in law, in must mean that society cannot rightly promote anything which the values accepted by that society in general condemn as evil. What those things are is contentious, but not unanswerable, and sometimes the answers are easy. A society which forbids (as the UK now does) discrimination against gays, and already promotes civil partnerships as marriage-equivalents, does not have standing to condemn gay marriage as evil. Therefore, it can rightly promote and enable it.
quote:
The principle is very simple: homosexual couples do not produce children, heterosexual couples do, and the common good requires children. Hence the state most definitely can privilege heterosexual over homosexual relationship, without the slightest moral problem in sight. Of course, these days there may be other reasons to privilege relationships. And indeed, given the recent reluctance of many heterosexual couples to have children and raise them together, the case for privileging them has become accordingly weaker. But there simply is no full equality possible at a principle level between marriage and gay relationships, hence there is also no particular reason why the state would have to treat them equally.
Except that, as you say, there is no necessary correlation between marriage and children. If "children" is the reason for difference of policy, then society can (and mine does, to some extent) directly support children themselves by way of benefits. And this can be (and generally is) independent of the parent's marital status.
The principle that potentially fertile married unions are to be supported in particular isn't a principle in fact reflected in law or policy. And marriage law generally isn't all about children. The biggest quantifiable advantage provided by law to marriage, as far as I can see, is the spousal exemption from inheritance tax, and that applies whether there are children or not.
Of course, it could be said that society has an interest in supporting the kind of relationship in which children are best raised, because marriage as a child-rearing institution is encouraged by supporting marriages in general, even marriages which are themselves childless (intentionally or otherwise). That would work. But that is not a principled reason for discriminating against gays. It is an argument for supporting gay marriage, because supporting gay marriage supports marriage as an institution. It sends the message "people who love one another and wish to live together are encouraged to formalise their unions by marrying" and the rationale is exactly the same as whether the people in love are straight or gay: the intended effect is to make marriage more usual, so that on average, more of the people who breed will be married.
And, of course, it has been known for gays to become parents themselves, either directly or by adoption. If parental marriage is good for children in general, it's good for those children too.
quote:
People are not lawyers, mostly. There is no strong drive toward moral consistency outside of "professional bodies", like indeed the judiciary or for that matter the Church. This is the point really. People are by and large not conscious of some clear moral principles to which they keep with steely resolve. People muddle by on rough moral reckoning by rules of thumb and exemplary cases. Hence changing the morals of the populace is more like selling a product than like a philosophical death-match. We got from moral A to moral B on one sales pitch, and we can get back on a different sales pitch. That's just the way it is.
But we are talking law here. A society which uses case law at all (as the UK does) and probably even more one which (like the USA) uses both precedent and has a foundational statement of principles as its highest law is necessarily committed to consistency of approach as a legislative virtue. The community's principles, as expressed in law, either are, or are not, broadly consistent with forbidding gay marriage. It would, all else being equal, be better to be consistent. That is better law making.
I don't, as it happens, share all of your cynicism about individual decision making - I think it is more principled than you give it credit for even if there is little internal analysis. But even if you are right, case law jurisdictions have already commited themselves to try to do better than that, and to make decisions based on discernable and consistently applied principle.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The society is deciding, and compromising, between different conceptions of good and bad.
Well, if you ever meet "society", please send them around for tea. I will have a chat with them about moral principle. Or in other words:
I'm never disappointed to have amused you, but I'm puzzled as to why, since I didn't think anything I said was outside the ordinary use of metaphorical language to describe what society does as if motivated by some corporate volition. Obviously I know, as well as you, that this is made up of individual people making decisions according to institutional rules.
Of course, if you are taking a sceptical position against the possibility of that sort of activity ever making coherent moral sense, you have an arguable case. It might be that there are no principles of legislative ethics that offer any consistency or guide to what ought to be allowed. But if that's the case, there's no basis for saying gay marriage can be known to society to be evil. It either approves, or it doesn't. You can't reason to the position from anything else, if there is no moral coherence at all.
Personally, I think that in sexual ethics the trend is very much, and very clearly, to a dominant ethic of equality and consent. All the laws cited above go that way. The tightening of laws against sexual exploitation of children does, too. So does the introduction of harassment and anti-discrimination law. The only law that changed in the direction of right sexual mechanics being dominant that I can think of in the same period is that it is now explicitly illegal to fuck a corpse. There is a general and coherent trend in law-making, and (I believe) in social attitudes which is congenial to gay marriage and in which the denial of the label "marriage" to an officially sanctioned class of sexual relationship looks increasingly anomalous.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
At any rate, this is not at all a counter-example to what I said. Indeed, my point is logically unassailable: a finite pot distributed over more people means less for each, or if you like, the same distributed over more people requires a bigger pot. That this is not happening in Australia, according to you, simply indicates that there is no net distribution in the first place.
Economic transactions, especially those conducted by the state, are notorious exceptions to the zero-sum "fixed pot of money" type of thinking. The classic example, alluded to by JonnyS, is minimum wage law. If all employers raise wages, this tends to actually increase their profits because "workers" are also "customers". Of course, an individual employer raising wages doesn't have the same macroeconomic effect. It's only achieved by doing so en masse. Another classic example is the funding of a fire department. Being able to contain and minimize fires preserves the tax base far in excess of the amount spent on the department.
At any rate, assuming that the state's pot is "fixed" seems unwarranted in the absence of a larger macroeconomic analysis (similar to the one mentioned by orfeo). At the very least I'd be wary of assuming that allowing spouses to file a joint tax return allowing them to deduct an extra X amount of money necessarily reduces the state's tax receipts by X. That seems to implicitly posit that every couple receiving the benefit will be stuffing X under their mattress instead of using in some manner that will later be subject to taxation.
And I'm still waiting for the explanation about how granting certain couples the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner or be considered their default heir diminishes the rights of other couples to do the same thing. Remember the original argument was that any progress in human rights in general (and presumably marital rights specifically) necessarily diminishes the rights of everyone else. If this is the case, where's the dimishment? If this isn't the case, why is this an exception to what is stated as a hard and fast rule?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is, legally speaking, a different world.
Sure, but that does not invalidate my point. There's nothing new about mutual consent. What's new is merely that on one hand all other considerations have been dropped, and on the other hand that people are deemed incapable now of pre-determining their consent.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Evil according to whom?
According to whomever it may concern. What I'm saying is that a government may not promote "gay marriage" if that same government considers "gay marriage" to be evil. If a government recognizes "gay marriages" officially, then this is at the very least an implicit acknowledgment that "gay marriages" are not evil. This sort of law is in itself a moral statement, that's my point.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Except that, as you say, there is no necessary correlation between marriage and children. If "children" is the reason for difference of policy, then society can (and mine does, to some extent) directly support children themselves by way of benefits. And this can be (and generally is) independent of the parent's marital status.
The state also considered - correctly - that a marriage was on average the best support system for raising children. Furthermore, the vast majority of marriages did produce children. It's not merely about producing offspring, after all, but about bringing up the next generation of good citizens. In this context encouraging marriages made perfect sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The principle that potentially fertile married unions are to be supported in particular isn't a principle in fact reflected in law or policy.
And for good reason - human fertility is a rather complicated affair, and sex was considered a deeply private matter. Supporting marriages was a good proxy that avoided prying into the reasons why one couple had x children and the other only y.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But that is not a principled reason for discriminating against gays. It is an argument for supporting gay marriage, because supporting gay marriage supports marriage as an institution.
Firstly, there's an unproven assumption there that being raised by a homosexual couple is as good for the child (on average) as being raised by a heterosexual couple. Secondly, unlike a heterosexual couple, a homosexual couple cannot generate the kids themselves which they are going to raise. Being available as adoptive parents is not the same as being able to have children. There is no way, for example, that a homosexual couple could independently decide to have another kid. They will have to wait for someone else to give up another kid for adoption. (Well, at least so for male homosexuals...)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And, of course, it has been known for gays to become parents themselves, either directly or by adoption. If parental marriage is good for children in general, it's good for those children too.
Has this been demonstrated with some kind of "social success of cohort" study? It's far from obvious to me that this is true, though of course a lot will depend on what one decides to measure.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
But we are talking law here.
I'm only partly talking about law, and as a secondary consideration. I did not mean "case law" as a technical term for UK legislative procedure, I simply meant that people argue from a case that was morally decided to other cases which are in question.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm never disappointed to have amused you, but I'm puzzled as to why, since I didn't think anything I said was outside the ordinary use of metaphorical language to describe what society does as if motivated by some corporate volition.
I basically think the metaphor is rubbish, hence my answer in terms of an equally rubbish metaphor. A better metaphor would be a bunch of cowboys trying to steer cattle down a particular path, using any tool of the trade including cattle prods, except that the cowboys frequently disagree with each other over which path is the best. The result is a more or less collective motion of the herd, lurching one way or the other, but it doesn't particularly resemble an individual human making a decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is a general and coherent trend in law-making, and (I believe) in social attitudes which is congenial to gay marriage and in which the denial of the label "marriage" to an officially sanctioned class of sexual relationship looks increasingly anomalous.
Insisting on the same government support is one thing, insisting on the label "marriage" quite another. Frankly, I think the latter is just a stupid proxy battle, a Humpty-Dumpty game of power. It's as if unmarried heterosexual couples stopped speaking of their "partner", but insisted that they be properly called "husband and wife". The idea being that once people would call them differently, then their relationship would be just as accepted as a traditional marriage. But they did not insist on such most silly re-definition of words, yet still got their acceptance.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Economic transactions, especially those conducted by the state, are notorious exceptions to the zero-sum "fixed pot of money" type of thinking.
That may be so, I do not particularly care. My point remains logically unassailable, your examples are irrelevant to it, and fixed budgets - to which "pot logic" applies - are at least in a transient sense ("we have this much money this term") very common in politics and indeed in any institution spending money.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And I'm still waiting for the explanation about how granting certain couples the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner or be considered their default heir diminishes the rights of other couples to do the same thing. ... If this isn't the case, why is this an exception to what is stated as a hard and fast rule?
I don't care, since I never said anything remotely like that (Johnny S perhaps did). However, I'm still waiting for you to say sorry for totally misrepresenting my statements and then calling them "bullshit".
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's an unproven assumption there that being raised by a homosexual couple is as good for the child (on average) as being raised by a heterosexual couple.
How could it possibly be either proven or disproven until homosexual couples can safely make themselves known? Now that we have some data to go on, the prospects for this "assumption" look good. In fact, seeing their success with children whom no one else wanted is the main reason why at least one of the legislators in Massachusetts who voted against same-sex marriage the first time changed her mind and voted for it some years later.
quote:
Being available as adoptive parents is not the same as being able to have children.
So what? As long as there are children for whatever reason uncared for by those who conceived them, being available as adoptive parents is beneficial to them, as well as to the community at large. Someone's got to do it, and I would suggest that two people are likelier to be better than one whatever the gender. It is very possible that the adaptive advantage conferred to society by the availability of someone to pick up kids from the dust suffices to perpetuate whatever "gay gene" might exist.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I did NOT say they 'give incentives to people to remain single'. I said that the budgetary effect of recognising same sex couples was a net gain to the budget. Taking into account all the effects in both directions.
As far as individual couples were concerned, some gained money and some lost money. Depending on their circumstances.
Apologies, I put it the wrong way round.
What you said is that financial incentives for marriage have been removed.
I've not been in Australia long enough to know the history to this. I didn't pick up on it being an issue at the last federal election - how long ago did these changes happen?
Decades ago probably. There has been a 'couples' rate for social security that is not simply twice the 'singles' rate for a very, very long time.
I'd be pretty darn surprised if this is not the case in other countries. It simply reflects the different per capita cost of living.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
It is, legally speaking, a different world.
Sure, but that does not invalidate my point. There's nothing new about mutual consent. What's new is merely that on one hand all other considerations have been dropped, and on the other hand that people are deemed incapable now of pre-determining their consent.
Yes, society has started taking a harder line on marital rape. Most people regard this as a good thing.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, there's an unproven assumption there that being raised by a homosexual couple is as good for the child (on average) as being raised by a heterosexual couple. Secondly, unlike a heterosexual couple, a homosexual couple cannot generate the kids themselves which they are going to raise. Being available as adoptive parents is not the same as being able to have children. There is no way, for example, that a homosexual couple could independently decide to have another kid. They will have to wait for someone else to give up another kid for adoption. (Well, at least so for male homosexuals...)
Firstly, the assumption you seem to be making is that being raised by a homosexual couple is actually worse for children than the state-run foster care system housing them after their heterosexual parents have fucked up so badly the state permanently revoked their custody rights. Either that, or wherever you live the foster care system is virtually unpopulated.
And if religious conservatives have taught us anything, it's that all homosexuals are male. For whatever reason, preaching about the dangers of the "lesbian menace" just doesn't put butts in the pews.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB: quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Economic transactions, especially those conducted by the state, are notorious exceptions to the zero-sum "fixed pot of money" type of thinking.
That may be so, I do not particularly care. My point remains logically unassailable, your examples are irrelevant to it, and fixed budgets - to which "pot logic" applies - are at least in a transient sense ("we have this much money this term") very common in politics and indeed in any institution spending money.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And I'm still waiting for the explanation about how granting certain couples the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner or be considered their default heir diminishes the rights of other couples to do the same thing. ... If this isn't the case, why is this an exception to what is stated as a hard and fast rule?
I don't care, since I never said anything remotely like that (Johnny S perhaps did). However, I'm still waiting for you to say sorry for totally misrepresenting my statements and then calling them "bullshit".
Your statement was bullshit, so you'll probably be waiting a long time. Your statement was that "The same money/perks spread over more people generally means less for each." What's so incredibly dishonest about this is that it in no way resembles any of the state's "perks" associated with marriage. Offhand I can't think of any that involve a fixed pot of money budgeted every year like you suggest. The most obvious monetary example is tax breaks for married couples, but you seem to believe that there's a big pot somewhere so that no one knows what their tax write-off is going to be until everyone files their tax return and the pot is divvied up. [Great news, honey! The divorce rate is up so our tax refund will be bigger this year!!!] Or maybe you think it's first-come, first-serve and late tax filers run the risk of the state running out of marital tax deductions. [I'm sorry, Mr. & Mrs. X. Due to your late filing your joint tax return is disallowed. Please file again individually.] I honestly have no idea which state-ascribed "perks" of marriage you think work like this. It gets even more nonsensical when discussing "perks" like power of attorney for an incapacitated spouse, which doesn't seem like the kind of thing that "means less for each" when extended to more people.
Your justification for this bullshit seems to be arguing that if states did things completely different than how they actually do, you'd be right. Logically this may be true, but it's also irrelevant bullshit. So seriously, do you actually have a "big fixed pot of money" example?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I wouldn't bother with the bits in italics, Croesos, because it seems that no matter HOW ludicrous we show the 'fixed pot' thinking to be, as in how much it's at odds with what actually happens in real life, IngoB will wave it away as an example that's not relevant to his unassailable theory.
Of course, a theory that has no application in the real world is not only unassailable, but fundamentally useless.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Economic transactions, especially those conducted by the state, are notorious exceptions to the zero-sum "fixed pot of money" type of thinking. The classic example, alluded to by JohnnyS, is minimum wage law.
I wasn't alluding to the minimum wage. I specifically referred to the redistribution of wealth.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And I'm still waiting for the explanation about how granting certain couples the right to make medical decisions for an incapacitated partner or be considered their default heir diminishes the rights of other couples to do the same thing. Remember the original argument was that any progress in human rights in general (and presumably marital rights specifically) necessarily diminishes the rights of everyone else. If this is the case, where's the dimishment? If this isn't the case, why is this an exception to what is stated as a hard and fast rule?
I never said anything about human rights being diminished either. I said that when injustice is put right it costs the oppressor something. It should do if an injustice is being put right.
I have found this thread a real eye-opener - particularly discovering that marriage is not encouraged by the state in Australia.
Although I have found all this even more confusing. I must have missed something because what I'm hearing is that gay couples want all the rights and privileges of marriage that they don't have already ... except there aren't any.
Why do they want it again?
[ 25. October 2011, 12:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I have found this thread a real eye-opener - particularly discovering that marriage is not encouraged by the state in Australia.
Although I have found all this even more confusing. I must have missed something because what I'm hearing is that gay couples want all the rights and privileges of marriage that they don't have already ... except there aren't any.
Why do they want it again?
You're simplifying to create a straw man. The only right or privilege aluded to that actually saved the government money is that of government grants. If your entire world is financially motivated then in Australia apparently there's no incentive.
But not all rights are crude financial transactions with the government. Let's start with the really obvious. Hospital visiting. You are in a car crash that puts you in a coma and have a wife. She is automatically your next of kin and can visit you. And IIRC is the one able to make legal decisions for you.
But now assume you are a gay man and have a husband. Your husband is, without gay marriage, not your next of kin. He's just an unrelated man. He can't see you in ICU. He isn't legally related, so if decisions need to be made about your care they go to your parents as your parents are your next of kin. The same parents who believe that you loving the person you love is a sin and will want to lock him out of any part of your life.
It's that sort of right more than the money-grubbing financial reasons. And yes, you could sign about fifty documents naming your partner. Or you could have a marriage.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is simply not true that "mutual consent" has replaced "right sexual mechanics" as moral criterion. Rather, it is simply the case that the latter has been all but eliminated as a criterion. Mutual consent of course has always been part of the "good sex" definition.
I live in a country that only made marital rape illegal in 1991. It was not legally about mutual consent before that.
quote:
In fact, the marriage contract used to be (and for RCs still formally is!) primarily about the two parties granting each other the right to sex. Marriage classically is a "mutual consent contract".
Mutual consent does not mean "Because you consented to something ten years ago it means you always consent to it all the time." It is that you both willingly (rather than coercedly) want it at that moment. Once more I find your claim that it has always been about mutual consent to be incredibly shaky.
quote:
Though of course modern people also find the concept of any kind of contractual obligation to have sex quite inconceivable...
That is completely false. I do not find the concept of a contractual obligation to have sex quite inconceivable. I consider having sex due to a contractual obligation to be pretty much a textbook example of prostitution.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I must have missed something because what I'm hearing is that gay couples want all the rights and privileges of marriage that they don't have already ... except there aren't any.
Why do they want it again?
Because they believe that their relationships are of a nature that can only adequately be described by the word "marriage", I would guess. It's a truth position.
Plus it's a whole lot easier and less open to misinterpretation to redefine the legal basis of marriage (as per Canada) than to put forward a whole parallel system of Civil Partnerships, (as pe the UK), and wait for the unforseen consequences to show up further down the line.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
quote:
It's that sort of right more than the money-grubbing financial reasons. And yes, you could sign about fifty documents naming your partner. Or you could have a marriage.
Drawing up and signing those 50 documents costs significantly more than getting married and still doesn't guarantee that they will be honoured, given that, in the U.S. at least, biological family ties can still take legal precedent over legal agreements signed to unrecognized partners. There are numerous cases of people drawing up such contracts only have biological family members invalidate them through court action. The state may also choose not to recognize these agreements because they aren't covered by already existing marriage protections and case law, something which happened to this elderly couple in California.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
How could it possibly be either proven or disproven until homosexual couples can safely make themselves known? Now that we have some data to go on, the prospects for this "assumption" look good.
Fair point. I'm also quite happy to let the data speak for itself, whatever it may say.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
As long as there are children for whatever reason uncared for by those who conceived them, being available as adoptive parents is beneficial to them, as well as to the community at large.
Is there actually a shortage in heterosexual couples willing to adopt? Anyway, I can well imagine that being raised by a gay couple is on average more beneficial to a child than being raised by an orphanage. If so, then a gay couple should get the preference.
I certainly do not think that gays are somehow automatically bad people/parents just because they are gay. I think it is better if a child has both a male and a female parent, in order to experience both genders. Also rather obviously a gay couple would teach its child sexual morals I disagree with. However, I have no particular opinion or experience on how to evaluate the severity of these disadvantages against the many other things that can be suboptimal. Certainly there's plenty of bad heterosexual parenting.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, society has started taking a harder line on marital rape. Most people regard this as a good thing.
I somehow doubt that a rational debate about this topic will be possible. Suffice to say that if you promise to take care of my garden, but then refuse to actually do any physical work when it is needed, I'm not actually allowed to take a stick and beat you into submission. In general, that a contract is made does not imply that every means to enforce it is licit. Hence it does not follow from marriage as contract of mutual consent to sex that marital rape is licit.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Firstly, the assumption you seem to be making is that being raised by a homosexual couple is actually worse for children than the state-run foster care system housing them after their heterosexual parents have fucked up so badly the state permanently revoked their custody rights.
I'm not making that assumption. I literally have no idea how well gay couples (will) do, comparatively speaking. I'm not sure that enough time has passed for there being any conclusive data.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For whatever reason, preaching about the dangers of the "lesbian menace" just doesn't put butts in the pews.
Well, I consider male and female homosex both equally wrong on moral principle. That's not to say that my personal "yuck" factor has no bias, it sure has. But I do not consider this as particularly relevant.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Your statement was bullshit, so you'll probably be waiting a long time. Your statement was that "The same money/perks spread over more people generally means less for each."
That's a rather daring spiel, given that anyone can read the post in question above (last paragraph). You did not at all pick me up on the statement you quote. Instead, you put totally unrelated words in my mouth, words that were the precise opposite of what I had just said (cf. my post (last paragraph)), and then called those words "bullshit".
To copy your favorite way of getting away with all manner of insults: it seems like you don't care what you say as long as you win in some imaginary point scoring scheme. Perhaps take a step back sometime and think whether this is really how you want to deal with other people.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Offhand I can't think of any that involve a fixed pot of money budgeted every year like you suggest.
Practically all budgets of modern nations work that way on most items, of course. It's just that thanks to having millions of people involved, meeting a target "pot size" usually can be achieved without making the pot itself the law. Many bureaucrats are instead busy with predicting the implicit budgetary impact of this or that "people" law, using the predictability of large groups of people to make the total resulting expenditure meet some set "pot" targets. The point of this exercise is of course precisely to avoid practical difficulties of the type that you mention. The downside of not making the pot explicit are unexpected budget deficits, which governments have to deal with fairly regularly.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is that you both willingly (rather than coercedly) want it at that moment. Once more I find your claim that it has always been about mutual consent to be incredibly shaky.
The only thing shaky here is the introduction of the words "at the moment". This simply changes what we mean by consent, by requiring some kind of "spontaneity".
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That is completely false. I do not find the concept of a contractual obligation to have sex quite inconceivable. I consider having sex due to a contractual obligation to be pretty much a textbook example of prostitution.
Well yes, that's basically what I meant. Only immoral / loveless sex can nowadays have contractual characteristics, it's quite inconceivable between "true lovers", much less as expression of "true love".
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes, society has started taking a harder line on marital rape. Most people regard this as a good thing.
I somehow doubt that a rational debate about this topic will be possible. Suffice to say that if you promise to take care of my garden, but then refuse to actually do any physical work when it is needed, I'm not actually allowed to take a stick and beat you into submission. In general, that a contract is made does not imply that every means to enforce it is licit. Hence it does not follow from marriage as contract of mutual consent to sex that marital rape is licit.
But according to you marriage is a contract of mutual consent. Rape is the violation of consent. It's not about force. It's about consent. Nothing more, nothing less. (At least unless you think it's about property rights).
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Firstly, the assumption you seem to be making is that being raised by a homosexual couple is actually worse for children than the state-run foster care system housing them after their heterosexual parents have fucked up so badly the state permanently revoked their custody rights.
I'm not making that assumption. I literally have no idea how well gay couples (will) do, comparatively speaking. I'm not sure that enough time has passed for there being any conclusive data.
IIRC the preliminary data says that gay people make much better than average parents. But that has something to do with the children necessarily being wanted.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It is that you both willingly (rather than coercedly) want it at that moment. Once more I find your claim that it has always been about mutual consent to be incredibly shaky.
The only thing shaky here is the introduction of the words "at the moment". This simply changes what we mean by consent, by requiring some kind of "spontaneity".
Apparently seduction must and can only be spontaneous these days by your understanding. Right. Gotcha.
Consent is either partner's to withdraw at any time (although admittedly not retroactively). What a relationship does is sets the default of consent to yes. The default and the common level but not the certain level. Each partner can at any moment choose to change their level and it needs to be valid at any given time.
And despite the dreams of Libertarians there are certain contracts you can not sign with any validity. You can't sign yourself into slavery legally because we are a civilised society. And likewise removing all consent to sex.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That is completely false. I do not find the concept of a contractual obligation to have sex quite inconceivable. I consider having sex due to a contractual obligation to be pretty much a textbook example of prostitution.
Well yes, that's basically what I meant. Only immoral / loveless sex can nowadays have contractual characteristics, it's quite inconceivable between "true lovers", much less as expression of "true love".
Tell that to someone who doesn't know couples in a BDSM relationship. But even there the sub gets a safeword. The consent is the sub's to withdraw at any time. The contract is strong and intense. But if you break a hard no from your partner, there's a term for that. "Rapist."
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Offhand I can't think of any that involve a fixed pot of money budgeted every year like you suggest.
Practically all budgets of modern nations work that way on most items, of course. It's just that thanks to having millions of people involved, meeting a target "pot size" usually can be achieved without making the pot itself the law. Many bureaucrats are instead busy with predicting the implicit budgetary impact of this or that "people" law, using the predictability of large groups of people to make the total resulting expenditure meet some set "pot" targets. The point of this exercise is of course precisely to avoid practical difficulties of the type that you mention. The downside of not making the pot explicit are unexpected budget deficits, which governments have to deal with fairly regularly.
Except most budget deficits AREN'T unexpected. They're entirely foreseen, before the financial year has started.
Which only illustrates the problem with the notion of a fixed pot of money. It's simply not the way things are calculated. Various payments are set out, on a per person or couple rate, and THEN the effect on the overall financial position of the government is worked out. No-one starts out with the pot of money and then says 'okay, so that means this is the grand total to spend, now let's work backwards to calculate the individual entitlements'.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, there's an unproven assumption there that being raised by a homosexual couple is as good for the child (on average) as being raised by a heterosexual couple.
This is a false comparison. Whether or not the advocate of equal marriage happens in fact to make that assumption, her argument doesn't rely on it, because the conservative assumption that a heterosexual couple, alike in every respect but their respective genders, is available for and deprived of every child adopted into a family headed by same-gender parents. On the contrary, gay parents take many of the most troubled and difficult to place kids. Telling them that they're better off in institutional care (it's terrible but at least it doesn't pretend not be terrible!) than in a family that offers them heroically loving care* and wants them badly enough to wait for adoption puts to bed any claim of Roman Catholicism to have children's interests or the promotion of family stability at heart in opposing children's interests and the promotion of family stability.
(*American Dad has an apt line where the title character, in response to a daughter of gay parents who protests that she already has a family, shoots back with: "You just think you do!")
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But not all rights are crude financial transactions with the government. Let's start with the really obvious. Hospital visiting. You are in a car crash that puts you in a coma and have a wife. She is automatically your next of kin and can visit you. And IIRC is the one able to make legal decisions for you.
But now assume you are a gay man and have a husband. Your husband is, without gay marriage, not your next of kin. He's just an unrelated man. He can't see you in ICU. He isn't legally related, so if decisions need to be made about your care they go to your parents as your parents are your next of kin. The same parents who believe that you loving the person you love is a sin and will want to lock him out of any part of your life.
How is that not covered by a civil partnership?
You have rightly highlighted an injustice that has, AFAIK, been put right by civil partnership legislation.
The question I asked was specifically about marriage.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Because they believe that their relationships are of a nature that can only adequately be described by the word "marriage", I would guess. It's a truth position.
Fair enough.
However, if you are right, that strengthens my conviction that this is not about human rights (as usually portrayed by the media) but about competing ideologies.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But not all rights are crude financial transactions with the government. Let's start with the really obvious. Hospital visiting. You are in a car crash that puts you in a coma and have a wife. She is automatically your next of kin and can visit you. And IIRC is the one able to make legal decisions for you.
But now assume you are a gay man and have a husband. Your husband is, without gay marriage, not your next of kin. He's just an unrelated man. He can't see you in ICU. He isn't legally related, so if decisions need to be made about your care they go to your parents as your parents are your next of kin. The same parents who believe that you loving the person you love is a sin and will want to lock him out of any part of your life.
How is that not covered by a civil partnership?
You have rightly highlighted an injustice that has, AFAIK, been put right by civil partnership legislation.
The question I asked was specifically about marriage.
It's only put right by civil partnership legislation if people recognise and acknowledge that a civil partner is in exactly the same position as a spouse by marriage.
Which rather begs the question, why create civil partnerships? One of the fundamental axioms of my work as a legislative drafter is, don't create 2 concepts instead of 1 if both concepts are then going to be treated exactly the same way.
As far as I can see, the only purpose in creating civil partnerships was as a compromise so that people who think that same-sex couples aren't REAL couples could continue to maintain that attitude. And if you run up against one of those people in a hospital, then a civil partner will have to spend a lot of time and stress fighting them.
Heterosexual married people never have to go through this. No heterosexual person who's said 'I'm her husband' or 'I'm his wife' has then been asked to provide a copy of their marriage certificate as proof. Well, not unless more than one person turns up at the hospital claiming to be the spouse.
That's what civil unions do. They confirm the ideology that says "yeah, we'll give them the rights on paper, but we all know that they're not really the same, nod nod wink wink".
[ 26. October 2011, 07:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You have rightly highlighted an injustice that has, AFAIK, been put right by civil partnership legislation.
The question I asked was specifically about marriage.
The basic point is that "separate but equal" as civil partnerships are is a highly unstable situation. Either the separate part wins out in which case one of the two is priveliged above and beyond the other in law and practice or the equal part wins out in which case the names become the same.
It is IMO more an American issue than an issue for any other country due to the multiplicity of laws in America. In any other country there's one set of laws. And opposition to gay marriage melts as people actually see it (called civil unions) and see that there's absolutely nothing wrong with it at all. Whereas in America there's the Full Faith and Credit clause and the Denial Of Marriage Act.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only put right by civil partnership legislation if people recognise and acknowledge that a civil partner is in exactly the same position as a spouse by marriage.
No, it is put right when a civil partner is given the same rights as a spouse by marriage. It doesn't have to be the same position at all.
When women campaign for the same rights as men they are not campaigning to be men.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's what civil unions do. They confirm the ideology that says "yeah, we'll give them the rights on paper, but we all know that they're not really the same, nod nod wink wink".
There's no nodding or winking. Rather a very open and clear "they have equal rights but are not the same." I thought that was the whole point.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only put right by civil partnership legislation if people recognise and acknowledge that a civil partner is in exactly the same position as a spouse by marriage.
No, it is put right when a civil partner is given the same rights as a spouse by marriage. It doesn't have to be the same position at all.
When women campaign for the same rights as men they are not campaigning to be men.
Inded they aren't. They are campaigning for the same rights. They weren't campaigning for Womens' Votes. They were campaigning for votes. Universal sufferage. They were campaigning for equal. Not separate but equal. Equal. Just as gay people are campaigning for marriage. Not heterosexual marriage.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
That's what civil unions do. They confirm the ideology that says "yeah, we'll give them the rights on paper, but we all know that they're not really the same, nod nod wink wink".
There's no nodding or winking. Rather a very open and clear "they have equal rights but are not the same." I thought that was the whole point.
"They have equal rights but are not the same." You are almost literally saying "They are equal but separate." I can not think of one single reason why an explicit doctrine of separate but equal would fail to satisfy everyone.
So tell me. Why do you think that given its history, people should be happy with the idea of Separate but Equal?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Not heterosexual marriage.
You see, you lost it there.
Why does marriage have to be qualified at all?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So tell me. Why do you think that given its history, people should be happy with the idea of Separate but Equal?
Um, maybe because I assume people are intelligent enough to realise that just because racists have misused a concept or phrase in the past does not make the phrase itself necessarily wrong.
1. Richard Dawkins is a Darwinist.
2. Eugenics was based on the views of Darwin.
3. Richard Dawkins is a Nazi.
(and while we are at it, all evolutionary theory must be tainted by the Nazis.)
This is fun.
Do you want to make up another one?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Because they believe that their relationships are of a nature that can only adequately be described by the word "marriage", I would guess. It's a truth position.
Fair enough.
However, if you are right, that strengthens my conviction that this is not about human rights (as usually portrayed by the media) but about competing ideologies.
OK, perhaps more explicitness.
Legalised gay partnerships, when carefully and correctly drafted, do indeed deal with most of the human rights inequalities, such as next-of-kin issues. For this reason, many gay couples may well be content with such legislation. However, your specific question related to why some gay couples are not satisfied with such a pragmatic arrangement. I offered one possible reason. I don't see that as meaning that there are no human rights issues in those cases, nor implying that for those who have such added concern, that those concerns are ideologically based. To say, "I think that the institution of marriage is a good, even a God-given, thing, and therefore I think it appropriate that it should be available to gay people," seems to me to be misrepresented by the label ideological. You may take such a position as being ideological, but to the person concerned that would be a meaningless argumnet, because they a priori accept what could be called the ideology of marriage, so much so that they want to participate in it.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
1. Richard Dawkins is a Darwinist.
2. Eugenics was based on the views of Darwin.
3. Richard Dawkins is a Nazi.
(and while we are at it, all evolutionary theory must be tainted by the Nazis.)
This is fun.
No, it wasn't based on Darwin. Galton + Mendel. And if you want to drag Herbert Spencer up, see my earlier post on how he was misused.
If someone advocates a system of prejudice, then they cant wriggle out by saying it mustn't be compared with other systemic prejudices which employ similar arguments. The argument isn't 'therefore you are a racist' but that 'putting forward this policy/argument would involve us in immoral behaviour on a par with racism'
If Dawkins advocated that 'religionists' must not be allowed to marry, Dawkins would open himself to the same scrutiny - is he advocating something as bad as racism but aimed at believers?
cheers,
L
[ 26. October 2011, 13:02: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
More and more jurisdictions and churches and religions are opening marriage to same-gender couples.
The joy and delight spreads out in concentric circles from the couples, their families, their friends, their neighbours, their coimmunities-
more and more happiness--
spreading and increasing -
elderly couples with a lifetime behind them (what a track record ! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
and youngsters setting out with hope - and slightly less burdened by the homophobia of 'the bad old days'...
btw gay couples have always cared for children, the infirm and elderly and others in physical or emtional need in their families and communities and churches and shuls ....
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
While i was penning my comment jjapes and Louise posted but i didnt see them until after wards -sorry bout that..
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by JohnnyS
Why does marriage have to be qualified at all?
Since you ask this question, I assume you are in full agreement with marriage between gay people. Once we have that, we will have no need for such a qualifier. It is those who are against gay marriage who argue for the qualifier. I think most of those arguing for the rights of gay people to marry the partner of their choice would be only too happy to have gender issues removed completely from marriage ceremonial and legislation.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Not heterosexual marriage.
You see, you lost it there.
Why does marriage have to be qualified at all?
I have no earthly idea. It should just be marriage. One thing. But your side wants to differentiate heterosexual marriage from Civil Unions. I'm more than happy to drop the qualifier heterosexual marriage if you are to accept that gay marriage is marriage.
Until then, it's heterosexual marriage to keep it equal with gay marriage. If only one gets the qualifier then your "equal rights but are not the same" is shown up for a sham. Only one side gets to use marriage unqualified. The other needs to add a qualifier.
If you genuinely accept equal rights then it's either heterosexual and gay marriage or simply marriage. You don't get marriage and gay marriage because that is very simply not equal.
Drop the qualifiers and accept it all as marriage and I will too. Or stick to qualifiers and I'll use qualifiers for both because that is fair and equal.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So tell me. Why do you think that given its history, people should be happy with the idea of Separate but Equal?
Um, maybe because I assume people are intelligent enough to realise that just because racists have misused a concept or phrase in the past does not make the phrase itself necessarily wrong.
No. But it makes the phrase an obvious trap. The consequences of separate but equal are obvious given how competative humans are. And can you find me an example of separate but equal that actually works? And is fair and equal?
Why do you want marriage to be segregated the way you do? Why are you trying to claim that heterosexual marriage is somehow qualitatively different from gay marriage?
quote:
1. Richard Dawkins is a Darwinist.
2. Eugenics was based on the views of Darwin.
3. Richard Dawkins is a Nazi.
Given that step 2 is a flat lie and that Hitler absolutely hated Darwinism, you're on extremely dodgy ground there. Eugenics goes to Francis Galton, one of the greatest statisticians ever to have lived. And has very little to do with Darwin.
quote:
(and while we are at it, all evolutionary theory must be tainted by the Nazis.)
This is fun.
Do you want to make up another one?
Given that your first one is a canard, please don't bother.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So tell me. Why do you think that given its history, people should be happy with the idea of Separate but Equal?
Um, maybe because I assume people are intelligent enough to realise that just because racists have misused a concept or phrase in the past does not make the phrase itself necessarily wrong.
No. But it makes the phrase an obvious trap. The consequences of separate but equal are obvious given how competative humans are. And can you find me an example of separate but equal that actually works? And is fair and equal?
Why do you want marriage to be segregated the way you do? Why are you trying to claim that heterosexual marriage is somehow qualitatively different from gay marriage?
This is where I disagree with both of you. The concept of "Separate but Equal" wasn't "misused" by American Segregationists and it "worked" just as it was designed to. Both as imagined and as implemented, the Segregationist system was supposed to maintain white supremacy while providing a fig-leaf of theoretical equality to assuage consciences and legal requirements. Given that it the system was able to maintain itself for nearly a century I'd say it "worked" pretty well.
Of course the real question is whether it's the kind of work we should be trying to duplicate. The only reason I can think of to create a separate legal regime is to treat different cases differently (i.e. "unequally"), which I guess is why "Separate" always gets top billing over "Equal".
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But according to you marriage is a contract of mutual consent. Rape is the violation of consent. It's not about force. It's about consent. Nothing more, nothing less. (At least unless you think it's about property rights).
I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp. I say to my wife that she can have access to my body sexually whenever she wants (within reasonable limits dictated by external circumstances). Now she asks me for sex, and there's nothing external stopping us. I say no. What has happened? I've gone back on a promise, one that I've signed into writing (if I have a traditional marriage contract). Does that give my wife a reasonable cause to complain? It sure does. Does it give her a right to claim some damages? Perhaps, though it's probably best left to the couple to determine what that means in practice. Does it give her the right to force my by physical violence or other means into having sex with her? No. At least there's nothing necessary about that. How a "breach of contract" is dealt with is not uniform. Whatever you may wish to call rape, it simply is not automatically justified by the prior contractual consent. The breach of contract tells us that I'm in the wrong and my wife is in the right, but it does not as such tell us anything about what should follow from that in a practical sense.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What a relationship does is sets the default of consent to yes. The default and the common level but not the certain level. Each partner can at any moment choose to change their level and it needs to be valid at any given time.
Well, that's at least the modern take on it. There's nothing necessary about this though. It's a quite general trend in modern thought that a choice must be revisable to be valid / moral. But de facto this just means that you become incapable to really dedicate your life to a particular cause. If there always is an "escape clause", then there is nothing definitive. A modern is hence socially incapable of saying to another modern "it is you that I want". They can only say "it is you that I want now, and for the foreseeable future", which is not quite the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And likewise removing all consent to sex.
But that's quite wrong. Nobody is talking about removing consent from sex. This is really about what valid ways there are to give consent, with modernity excluding the traditional one.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But if you break a hard no from your partner, there's a term for that. "Rapist."
Again, I see no particular reason why this is supposed to be at odds with "contractual consent". To repeat, "contractual consent" specifies that it is wrong to withdraw consent (that is a breach of contract), but it does not specify any consequences of that. It just does not follow that one can simply ignore a "no". The only things that follows necessarily is that the "no" is wrong.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
I can feel a headache coming ...
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
No, it wasn't based on Darwin. And if you want to drag Herbert Spencer up, see my earlier post on how he was misused.
Exactly, misused. This sounds like special pleading to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
If someone advocates a system of prejudice, then they cant wriggle out by saying it mustn't be compared with other systemic prejudices which employ similar arguments. The argument isn't 'therefore you are a racist' but that 'putting forward this policy/argument would involve us in immoral behaviour on a par with racism'
I think you mean 'similar sounding arguments.' I can't remember who first picked up on the similarity to the phrase 'separate but equal' but the argument has been consistently 'guilty by association.'
I've never used the word separate, I have used the word different. Like men and women. They are both equal, but they are not the same. Is it sexist and equal to racism to have different toilets for men and women? Is that a form of apartheid?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If you genuinely accept equal rights then it's either heterosexual and gay marriage or simply marriage.
That's right. There's heterosexual marriage which for hundreds (if not thousands) of years we've called marriage; and there's gay marriage for which we have recently introduced civil partnerships.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And can you find me an example of separate but equal that actually works? And is fair and equal?
As I replied to Louise the obvious example that comes to mind is the struggle for women's equality. Women want the same rights as men, they do not want to be men. They want the same rights because they wanted to be treated as equal human beings, not because they want to be treated as if they were men. Men and women are (should be) equal but they are not the same.
If your argument were to be consistent I would no longer be able to use the words man or woman, but could only ever refer to people as humans.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's only put right by civil partnership legislation if people recognise and acknowledge that a civil partner is in exactly the same position as a spouse by marriage.
No, it is put right when a civil partner is given the same rights as a spouse by marriage. It doesn't have to be the same position at all.
When women campaign for the same rights as men they are not campaigning to be men.
Laws that now give men and women exactly the same rights don't say 'man or woman'. They say 'person'.
That's the point. You don't, in any sane logical system of law, announce the creation of two separate categories and then say 'but really the difference between them is totally irrelevant'. If you are going to treat men and women exactly the same throughout you just say 'person'.
You only bother mentioning the gender of a person in situations where gender is relevant. And yes, there are still some situations where gender IS relevant. Not many, but a few. There are various biological/health-related things that are inherently either confined to one gender or more likely for one gender than the other.
"Separate but equal" is a classic case of adding unnecessary complexity to the law. If you really, truly mean equal, ie same treatment throughout, then just drop the 'separate'. Get rid of the distinction and create a larger category that removes the distinction altogether. Only talk about the distinction when it makes a difference.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Technical correction: actually, for 'man or woman' they say 'individual'. Because 'person' will include corporations...
But I can guarantee you, if I ever drafted something that said 'man or woman', it would be crossed out by my boss in two seconds flat.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Oh, and while I think of it, the logical opposite category from 'civil union' isn't 'heterosexual marriage'. The logical opposite category is 'religious union'.
If the law wants to treat 'civil union' or 'civil marriage' differently from 'religious union' and 'religious marriage' then so be it. As already discussed, some countries do exactly that.
But at the moment there are a number of countries where 'civil' union is in fact means 'homosexual civil union because we don't want them in marriages'. It's code. Code which doesn't really work if popular speech in the UK is any guide. People look at a 'civil union', compare it, and call it a 'marriage'. Whereas if 'civil union' became the term applied to all non-religious unions it might have a chance of sticking.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
In England and Wales the Society of Friends does now marry all couples, including same-gender couples in the meeting houses.
It's called a Meeting for Worship for Marriage.
It has no standing in law -but then nor Quaker marriages in the 17th century and it didnt stop them then either !
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
should have read
'nor did'
sorry ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
Indeed I seem to recall some controversy about heterosexual couples in the UK desirous of civil partnerships and were denied. There definitely seemed to be a sense that they weren't "playing the game," that a civil partnership is just what you call marriage when two men or women do it. This attitude may be challenged by a recent administrative ruling by the Conservative government here that British civil partnerships don't constitute marriage for Canadian purposes. I suspect that this is the usual ineptitude on LGBT... issues at play here on our part but it's nevertheless an interesting wake-up call to too much complacence about the SBE category.
(Funnily enough when the Tories were first elected Harper made a half-hearted bid to revisit the Civil Marriage Act with a view to replacing same-sex marriages with British-style "I Can't Believe It's Not Marriage" civil unions. In Quebec, the only jurisdiction in the kingdom with civil unions, benefits are virtually identical and both options are open to all couples).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If your argument were to be consistent I would no longer be able to use the words man or woman, but could only ever refer to people as humans.
No, if our argument were to be consistent you would refer to them as humans when what you meant were humans regardless of gender (as in fact you frequently DO including in this thread, you're just not so self-conscious about it), and you would use the words man or woman when it actually mattered whether the human in question was a male human or a female one.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
and you would use the words man or woman when it actually mattered whether the human in question was a male human or a female one.
Ah, just let me check my universally accepted and exhaustively authoritative textbook that tells me when (and when not) I'm allowed to make that distinction.
What? There isn't one! What do we now?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
and you would use the words man or woman when it actually mattered whether the human in question was a male human or a female one.
Ah, just let me check my universally accepted and exhaustively authoritative textbook that tells me when (and when not) I'm allowed to make that distinction.
What? There isn't one! What do we now?
It's not a question of being 'allowed', it's a question of whether you actually CHOOSE to make the distinction or not, and asking, why would you want to? Why are you choosing to use that language instead of the alternative?
Whether you, in your everyday speech, wish to spend time emphasising 'man or woman' when you could actually just say 'person' or 'human being' is ultimately your own business, but people will draw conclusions from your method of speech. I think if you did this an awful lot of the time while also repeatedly mentioning how men and women are treated the same, your listeners would be entitled to ask if you were protesting too much.
The point being, if you keep doing this you're sending a mixed message. "Look how nice I'm being to women, I'm treating them exactly the same way as men! But you must never, ever forget that they're actually women. Not remotely like us men, but for now we'll treat them just the same as men!"
But you can do that if you want, and people will draw their own conclusions about your behaviour.
Now, when LAWS exhibit that kind of behaviour... it's pretty much the same result. Only the message is being broadcast throughout the land.
[ 27. October 2011, 06:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
It's worth emphasising, looking at the last couple of posts, that I've never referred to the idea of being 'allowed' or having 'permission'.
The language you choose to use reflects your mindset. If your mindset is to emphasise men and women as separate and distinct, you will use the 2 words. If your mindset is that in the circumstances gender is entirely irrelevant, you will pick the gender-neutral word such as 'person'.
Parliament chooses in almost all cases to use gender-neutral words. Whether you follow suit is your own decision.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's worth emphasising, looking at the last couple of posts, that I've never referred to the idea of being 'allowed' or having 'permission'.
I got that from your comment about your boss crossing it out of any legislation if you included it in a draft.
But you are right, this is discussion is going nowhere fast. Sorry for the tangent.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure why this is hard to grasp. I say to my wife that she can have access to my body sexually whenever she wants (within reasonable limits dictated by external circumstances).
That part is not hard to grasp. What is incredibly squicky is the notion of formalised legalised contracts to do this as a default. As I say, I know several people in BDSM relationships who do have such agreements set up. And safewords.
quote:
I've gone back on a promise, one that I've signed into writing (if I have a traditional marriage contract).
Indeed. That a "traditional marriage contract" provides more sexual rights than many explicitely kinky BDSM contracts makes me very glad we've come a long way.
quote:
There's nothing necessary about this though.
There's nothing necessary about universal sufferage or women being allowed to own property either. But fortunately we've developed morally over the years.
quote:
It's a quite general trend in modern thought that a choice must be revisable to be valid / moral. But de facto this just means that you become incapable to really dedicate your life to a particular cause. If there always is an "escape clause", then there is nothing definitive.
There's always an escape clause in the law. But that doesn't prevent your own morality dedicating you. It simply means that your dedication should not be a part of the marriage or any other legal contract - you can not sell yourself into slavery for very good reasons. Your kinks are your own. And if you want kinky sex and property rights over each others' bodies, feel free.
But historical marriage is all about property rights. Which is why if you read the bible rape victims under some circumstances have to marry their rapists. We've moved on since then.
quote:
A modern is hence socially incapable of saying to another modern "it is you that I want". They can only say "it is you that I want now, and for the foreseeable future", which is not quite the same thing.
Do you actually know any moderns?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Exactly, misused. This sounds like special pleading to me.
Except that as Croesus points out, "Separate but Equal" was used exactly as intended. This sounds like false equivalence to me.
quote:
I think you mean 'similar sounding arguments.' I can't remember who first picked up on the similarity to the phrase 'separate but equal' but the argument has been consistently 'guilty by association.'
The argument has consistently been "similar arguments to a similar end" - that of the denigration of one side in favour of another while throwing them a sop and trying to draw a cover over it.
quote:
I've never used the word separate, I have used the word different. Like men and women. They are both equal, but they are not the same. Is it sexist and equal to racism to have different toilets for men and women? Is that a form of apartheid?
Have you seen the queues for ladies loos at busy events?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
That's right. There's heterosexual marriage which for hundreds (if not thousands) of years we've called marriage; and there's gay marriage for which we have recently introduced civil partnerships.
There's also polygamous marriage, morganatic marriages, consorts, concubines, common law marriage, and many other forms of marriage that have happened over time. All coming under the heading of marriage. It's a broad category, and gay marriage is just one part of it.
quote:
As I replied to Louise the obvious example that comes to mind is the struggle for women's equality. Women want the same rights as men, they do not want to be men.
So they don't want separate but equal. They want equal. They didn't campaign for "womens votes" to be something separate from votes. They campaigned for Universal Sufferage.
quote:
If your argument were to be consistent I would no longer be able to use the words man or woman, but could only ever refer to people as humans.
As has been pointed out, this is crap. There are distinctions but when talking about people for non-gender specific reasons you talk about "people".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Hmm. This whole women's votes discussion brought to mind a bizarre scenario where the official announcement of election results involves a bloke (would certainly be a bloke) standing up and saying something like:
Smith: 572 male votes, 378 female votes
Jones: 1,235 male votes, 892 female votes
Warwick: 802 male votes, 1,029 female votes
And so on and so forth.
I suppose polling companies enjoy breaking down their poll results on the basis of age and gender and so on, but the official results never get analysed on this basis. Because it doesn't matter one jot for the purpose of determining who gets elected. Whereas it probably does matter for strategists trying to work out how their candidate can improve their chances of getting elected.
[ 27. October 2011, 12:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm. This whole women's votes discussion brought to mind a bizarre scenario where the official announcement of election results involves a bloke (would certainly be a bloke) standing up and saying something like:
Smith: 572 male votes, 378 female votes
Jones: 1,235 male votes, 892 female votes
Warwick: 802 male votes, 1,029 female votes
And so on and so forth.
But since "voting" was traditionally a male privilege, using the word for both male and female votes would just be treating women "as if they were men". A different term, preferably with a lot more syllables and bureaucratic overtones, should be invented like "women's ballotizing" or "female preference polling". So the announcement should go something like this:
quote:
Smith: 572 votes, 378 female ballot preferences
Jones: 1,235 votes, 892 female ballot preferences
Warwick: 802 votes, 1,029 female ballot preferences
There. Now women won't suffer the indignity of "be[ing] treated as if they were men".
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
No, it wasn't based on Darwin. And if you want to drag Herbert Spencer up, see my earlier post on how he was misused.
Exactly, misused. This sounds like special pleading to me.
Herbert Spencer was misused to attribute to Darwin views he didn't hold and his thought was described as 'darwinism' when it wasn't, so kindly tell me what's special pleading about that? You've been told already where the eugenicists got their views and you might as well take out the torch and pitchforks for farmers and gardeners because if they hadn't got those terrible ideas about how to breed prize bulls, horses, pigs, sweet peas etc, people wouldn't have made such leaps to humans. Therefore all farmers and gardeners are nazis.
If you hold there's a significant difference between humans and prize pigs then you can say that the argument for breeding better pigs mustn't be applied to humans, and there's no harm in arguing for breeding better pigs.
But gay people are humans, not some other category of creature at all, so you have to make a case why this kind of human vs human discrimination is ok, and not at all like that kind of nasty human versus human discrimination despite using the same arguments and looking like the same thing.
The old argument about 'women not wanting to be men' goes a long way back and has historically been used precisely to disadvantage and to discriminate against women by defining whatever right women were looking for as 'mannish' and implying that 'proper' women wouldn't want such a right therefore there had to be something wrong with women who sought such rights, and women who didn't want to be so labelled had better shut their pretty little mouths, if they knew what was good for them. So you're not doing yourself any favours by trotting out the old chestnuts of sexism to show how unexceptionable your arguments are. They dont pass muster on women either.
L.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Hmm. This whole women's votes discussion brought to mind a bizarre scenario where the official announcement of election results involves a bloke (would certainly be a bloke) standing up and saying something like:
Smith: 572 male votes, 378 female votes
Jones: 1,235 male votes, 892 female votes
Warwick: 802 male votes, 1,029 female votes
And so on and so forth.
But since "voting" was traditionally a male privilege, using the word for both male and female votes would just be treating women "as if they were men". A different term, preferably with a lot more syllables and bureaucratic overtones, should be invented like "women's ballotizing" or "female preference polling". So the announcement should go something like this:
quote:
Smith: 572 votes, 378 female ballot preferences
Jones: 1,235 votes, 892 female ballot preferences
Warwick: 802 votes, 1,029 female ballot preferences
There. Now women won't suffer the indignity of "be[ing] treated as if they were men".
I bow in awe of your superior logic.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As I say, I know several people in BDSM relationships who do have such agreements set up. And safewords.
The comparison is silly. Firstly, this is a mutually equal giving of consent, not some kind of master-slave relationship: conjugal rights and duties are symmetric, at least as far as the marriage contract itself is concerned. Secondly, a "safeword" provides a distinction between "being violated for pleasure" and "being violated too much". But the marriage contract is not about being violated at all. If sex with the spouse has become such a horrible displeasure that honoring one's conjugal duties would deserve the label "rape", then arguably the marriage should be separated (at least temporarily) and the couple should attend counseling together rather than force sex on each other. You are simply extending this aspect of the marriage contract far beyond its intentions.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That a "traditional marriage contract" provides more sexual rights than many explicitely kinky BDSM contracts makes me very glad we've come a long way.
It doesn't, see above. But we certainly have come a long way, for better or worse.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There's nothing necessary about this though.
There's nothing necessary about universal sufferage or women being allowed to own property either. But fortunately we've developed morally over the years.
I have argued that a contract of consent does not somehow automatically justify marital rape. Obviously there is a historical connection, but if we have developed morally over the years, then we should be able to disentangle one from the other.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It simply means that your dedication should not be a part of the marriage or any other legal contract - you can not sell yourself into slavery for very good reasons.
Again I don't think the comparison to slavery is fair. But in principle I'm very much in favor of distinguishing civil contracts from "moral dedication". However, I do not see why such moral dedication cannot be formal. A contract does not have to be "secular" in nature.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But historical marriage is all about property rights. Which is why if you read the bible rape victims under some circumstances have to marry their rapists. We've moved on since then.
Firstly, we are not talking about OT marriage. Secondly, there is little doubt that the consent given to marriage these days is much less determined by the economical interests of the families of the couple. But this is a general statement about life back then, really, not about marriage. The reasons for consent have changed, but not the requirement of consent.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Do you actually know any moderns?
Way too many...
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If sex with the spouse has become such a horrible displeasure that honoring one's conjugal duties would deserve the label "rape", then arguably the marriage should be separated (at least temporarily) and the couple should attend counseling together rather than force sex on each other. You are simply extending this aspect of the marriage contract far beyond its intentions.
<snip>
I have argued that a contract of consent does not somehow automatically justify marital rape. Obviously there is a historical connection, but if we have developed morally over the years, then we should be able to disentangle one from the other.
You're avoiding the main question. Doesn't your theory of pre-determined consent eliminate marital rape as a category? If one holds to your position that carte blanche consent can be irrevocably granted once, doesn't that make any sex that occurs within a valid marriage to be non-rape? And if it's possible to have non-consensual sex (a.k.a. rape) in marriage, can consent really be said to be "pre-determin[ed]"?
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... But the marriage contract is not about being violated at all. If sex with the spouse has become such a horrible displeasure that honoring one's conjugal duties would deserve the label "rape", then arguably the marriage should be separated (at least temporarily) and the couple should attend counseling together rather than force sex on each other. You are simply extending this aspect of the marriage contract far beyond its intentions.
No further than it has been 'extended' in reality, for the great majority of human history and individuals. If this is an 'extension', it is an extension that was and still is socially acceptable in many times and places. So what a husband can do in private with his wife can be redefined by society. Check.
(And sex doesn't have to be a "horrible displeasure" to be unwanted at a certain time. Why do you think there are all those rules about when not to have sex in the OT? If there's rules about when a wife should not be required to have sex, then ... do I have to spell it out?)
quote:
I have argued that a contract of consent does not somehow automatically justify marital rape. Obviously there is a historical connection, but if we have developed morally over the years, then we should be able to disentangle one from the other.
So the sexual aspect of marriage has been redefined in practice - from the absolute right of the husband (I believe it is extremely unusual for women to rape men) to mutual consent. Check.
quote:
Firstly, we are not talking about OT marriage. Secondly, there is little doubt that the consent given to marriage these days is much less determined by the economical interests of the families of the couple. But this is a general statement about life back then, really, not about marriage. The reasons for consent have changed, but not the requirement of consent.
So marriage used to be primarily about family, property, and inheritance, but now it isn't. Now it's about mutual affection and support. Check.
So basically you're acknowledging that what marriage is, and why people get married, and what they can do to each other after they're married, have changed, and that society can make those changes. So why can't society decide that the people who get married can also change? If marriage is no longer primarily about guaranteeing a sexual partner for the husband, or passing wealth on to children, then why does it still have to be all about Slot A and Tab B? OliviaG
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I somehow doubt that a rational debate about this topic will be possible. Suffice to say that if you promise to take care of my garden, but then refuse to actually do any physical work when it is needed, I'm not actually allowed to take a stick and beat you into submission. In general, that a contract is made does not imply that every means to enforce it is licit. Hence it does not follow from marriage as contract of mutual consent to sex that marital rape is licit.
That's pretty much how the old (and now invalid) UK line of authorities reasoned. If it was necessary to beat your wife in order to have sex with her, the beating was certainly a criminal assault, but the sex, to which you had a pre-determined consent, was not 'rape'.
Almost no one thinks like that any more. Sexual ethics have changed.
My point is that they have not thereby become unprincipled. There is a theme - and a very strong one - in our laws and in most people's opinions and behaviour, that makes mutual consent a primary criterion for determining the morality of sexual activity. That ethical theme leads to different conclusions to the more traditional views of sexual ethics, but it does not mean "anything goes". It is not a slippery slope with nothing to hold us from moral degeneracy.
I, personally, have a fairly conservative sexual ethic in many ways. I think that an ethic of consent as the main criterion allows many things that I consider dubious. But it plainly doesn't allow anything at all.
Thus I think that the "where will it stop?" argument against gay marriage is nonsense. Gay marriage is proposed on the basis of sound ethic principles - equality and consent. They aren't the whole of morality, but they are moral. It is quite possible to ask, and answer, and argue about other forms of marriage, and have principled reasons for allowing or disallowing them, and that doesn't change if we let gays marry as well.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If sex with the spouse has become such a horrible displeasure that honoring one's conjugal duties would deserve the label "rape", then arguably the marriage should be separated (at least temporarily) and the couple should attend counseling together rather than force sex on each other.
Just in case there's anyone reading this who needs to know: Joint counseling is generally considered to be contraindicated in the case of domestic violence. And marital rape is domestic violence. You should NOT attend joint counseling with an abusive partner until you have both received adequate individual counseling, and until your counselor believes that it would be safe for you to do so.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Yo Justinian, I know it's a total tangent but the OT law did NOT force rape victims to marry the rapists--rather it forced rapists to marry their victims if the victim and her family required it of him--which was a way of forcing the bastard to make as much restitution as possible for the lifelong harm he'd done her. The victim and her family were totally free to either force him into permanent marriage and lifelong financial support (rapists could never divorce their victims for any cause) or they could, if they chose, simply take the financial support as a lump sum and omit the marriage altogether. The whole thing was about DIS-empowering the rapist and attempting restorative justice insofar as that's even possible in a society like theirs.
I grant you it wouldn't fly today in a Western culture where the damage inflicted by rape is mainly psychological/physical. That's not restorable except by miracle, not today and not back then either. But rape victims in that culture had the additional burden to bear of being rendered unmarriageable--which meant that he had also deprived her of her livelihood. With no husband and no children, such a woman would be forced into beggary or prostitution. The Law of Moses aimed to stop that by putting the financial burden on the bastard who harmed her in the first place. And by giving her the option, if she chose it, of grabbing whatever social status, property, etc. he had as well by forcing him to give her the status of a wife. Alternately, she could use the financial damages award to find a decent husband.
None of this is very acceptable, of course. But that's because the crime itself is utterly unacceptable, and impossible to recompense. (One could argue that things were actually fairer in Moses' day--I'd love to see some friends of mine collect major financial damages from the assholes who assaulted them.)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're avoiding the main question. Doesn't your theory of pre-determined consent eliminate marital rape as a category?
It would help if you actually read my posts before getting out the cookie-cutter for your responses. To recapitulate then, in brief, what was said above: no, it doesn't. A contract of consent tells you which party is wrong if consent is (unreasonably!) withheld. It does not tell you at all what consequences this can or must have. One may very well say that a Christian spouse in this situation must above all else consider Matt 5:38-42.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
So why can't society decide that the people who get married can also change? If marriage is no longer primarily about guaranteeing a sexual partner for the husband, or passing wealth on to children, then why does it still have to be all about Slot A and Tab B?
Marriage quite naturally gets mixed up with the dominant concerns of society, since it is foundational to its continuation. This does however not mean that it is - in principle - about these concerns. Marriage was, is, and will be (till the Second Coming) about the fruitful union in one flesh of man and woman. It doesn't particularly matter what society or the law makers think about that. Except that one may need to formally decouple marriage from whatever the state is allowing as "marriage" these days. Which is fine by me. Give Caesar what is Caesar's.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's pretty much how the old (and now invalid) UK line of authorities reasoned. If it was necessary to beat your wife in order to have sex with her, the beating was certainly a criminal assault, but the sex, to which you had a pre-determined consent, was not 'rape'.
This is however not quite my argument. Clearly one can inflict pain and injury to body and mind with genitals just as with fists, so I see no particular reason why one should not consider "genital assault" itself as criminal, even if a general consent had been given (and then unreasonably withdrawn). For such acts the word "rape" would be common.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Gay marriage is proposed on the basis of sound ethic principles - equality and consent.
Since "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, it of course enjoys no ethical support whatsoever - it doesn't exist. Some secular arrangements between gays could be argued for on these grounds, but they are simply not a marriage. Furthermore, that which is evil does not enjoy equality before the law with things that are not, even if in many ways analogous otherwise. Also, consent to evil is not providing support to the evil, but rather a cause against those consenting. Hence if gay sex is evil by its very nature, then clearly such secular arrangements (unreasonably called "gay marriages") cannot be argued for in analogy to marriage at all.
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
quote:
Marriage was, is, and will be (till the Second Coming) about the fruitful union in one flesh of man and woman.
Except when it's about the union of one man and multiple women, or (in rare cases, true) about the union of one woman and multiple men, or about the union of a man and a berdache, all of which are or have been legitimate forms of marriage in some time or place in the world.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
And I love how the word FRUITFUL got slipped in there. Very important that marriages are fruitful...
*scans the Marriage Acts of various countries to see if ANY of them require fruit*
EDIT: It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. Whatever someone like IngoB says, the laws of the land simply don't reflect these kinds of criteria.
I can see two logically consistent grounds for saying no to same-sex marriage. One is taht marriages are for childbearing. The other is that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong. Now, I'm sure there are people around, including right here on the Ship, who think one or both of those things are true. BUT THE LAWS DON'T SUPPORT THEM. The Marriage Act in this country hasn't said anything about childbearing in the last 50 to 60 years, and quite possibly not EVER. And homosexual sex has been decriminalised for a few decades now.
The thing that pisses me off is that no-one has the guts to flat out say that the laws should reflect their moral views on either the childbearing or the homosexuality point. But without that, there is absolutely no sensible, logical basis for excluding same-sex marriage from the law. I wish people would stop freaking trying to have it both ways.
[ 29. October 2011, 03:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Marriage was, is, and will be (till the Second Coming) about the fruitful union in one flesh of man and woman. ...
And yet fruitful unions happen all over the place without marriage. OliviaG
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Except when it's about the union of one man and multiple women, or (in rare cases, true) about the union of one woman and multiple men, or about the union of a man and a berdache, all of which are or have been legitimate forms of marriage in some time or place in the world.
Why do you say "except"? All these are indeed about the fruitful union in one flesh of one man and one woman. (Though perhaps you are trying something sneaky with "berdache".) Even in polygamy the sexual act remains between one man and one woman (biological "mechanics" enforces this), it remains ordered to procreation (polygamy produces children), and marriage remains a formal and binding decision between the partners (rather than a one night orgy).
Clearly, one can critique about polygamy that the form of this union is not representing ideally the principle. And that is exactly what Christianity traditionally does, claiming that Christ Himself outlawed this less ideal form for his followers.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I love how the word FRUITFUL got slipped in there. Very important that marriages are fruitful... *scans the Marriage Acts of various countries to see if ANY of them require fruit* EDIT: It's the inconsistency that pisses me off. Whatever someone like IngoB says, the laws of the land simply don't reflect these kinds of criteria.
I did not try to "sneak" anything in there, I simply gave the shortest complete definition. I'm quite happy to discuss what this means, and what not, at length. It is somewhat difficult, because sex must be "ordered to" procreation rather than "result in" the same. All this really means is that it is the form of the act that counts, not its outcome. However, the form itself is determined according to a procreative outcome. The simplest case is sex between an elderly couple. Their ongoing sexual life does not become illicit at some point merely because they become infertile due to age.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can see two logically consistent grounds for saying no to same-sex marriage. One is taht marriages are for childbearing. The other is that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong.
Both are correct, the former however only in the sense described above. Marriages are indeed for ("ordered to") childbearing, but that does not make childbearing as such a sine qua non. Rather it is necessary that one can perform the "correct mechanics" that belong to conceiving (but not necessarily result in) children. Consequently, RC canon law outlaws impotent, but not infertile, marriages.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The thing that pisses me off is that no-one has the guts to flat out say that the laws should reflect their moral views on either the childbearing or the homosexuality point. But without that, there is absolutely no sensible, logical basis for excluding same-sex marriage from the law. I wish people would stop freaking trying to have it both ways.
You are completely wrong there. It is not good governance to outlaw all behavior that is considered immoral / evil. Firstly, the state has finite resources and simply cannot control all aspects of the behavior of its citizens. A prudent choice hence has to be made which acts will be prosecuted and which not. Secondly, even if the state had the resources to control all citizens all the time, this still remains a bad idea. The problem of "who controls the controllers" arises, i.e., it will be people controlling people, and the misbehavior made possible by giving people control over other people is often much worse than the misbehavior that was supposed to be controlled thereby. In other words, it is wise for the state to grant a considerable amount of privacy, even if then things happen behind closed doors which can be called immoral / evil.
However, it is something completely different for the state to encourage rather than tolerate immoral / evil acts. In that case the state shares in the responsibility for these acts, and hence does evil. The recognition of "gay marriages", with a variety of practical support in typical scenarios, is hence not licit to the state, if "gay marriages" are immoral / evil.
In summary, it is an entirely consistent and indeed prudent position to say that on one hand the state should in general keep out of bedrooms but on the other hand insist that it should only support heterosexual marriages. That is not a question of guts, but of practical wisdom.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
And yet fruitful unions happen all over the place without marriage.
Clearly. But they shouldn't.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
So we are back to the line that my husband and I are not REALLY married because we have decided that we do not want to have children. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
So we are back to the line that my husband and I are not REALLY married because we have decided that we do not want to have children.
If you entered into marriage with the firm conviction that you never wish to have children, though you reasonably could, then according to the RC Canon Law at least (Can. 1101 §2) you are indeed not (sacramentally) married. I'm not sure what the situation is if there is a good reason why you do not desire any offspring, e.g., a severe gene defect that almost certainly would be passed on. I think Can. 1102 §1 probably makes it impossible to make openness to offspring entirely conditional on future developments (e.g., a cure for said gene defect), but IANACL.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're avoiding the main question. Doesn't your theory of pre-determined consent eliminate marital rape as a category?
It would help if you actually read my posts before getting out the cookie-cutter for your responses. To recapitulate then, in brief, what was said above: no, it doesn't. A contract of consent tells you which party is wrong if consent is (unreasonably!) withheld. It does not tell you at all what consequences this can or must have. One may very well say that a Christian spouse in this situation must above all else consider Matt 5:38-42.
I read 'em quite carefully. It would be nice if you'd return the consideration. For instance, I notice you didn't address my question about how consent that can later be revised can be considered "pre-determined". The idea that such consent could be withdrawn later is quite at odds with your horror at the "general trend in modern thought that a choice must be revisable to be valid / moral". That's not a position that consent shouldn't be withdrawn, that's a claim that consent can't be withdrawn ("revised") in what you consider a valid marriage. So, once again, if consent is "pre-determined" in marriage, how is can any sex within marriage be considered "rape", and if it is possible (not "allowed", just "possible") to withhold consent within marriage, how can consent be considered "pre-determined" or non-revisable?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
However, it is something completely different for the state to encourage rather than tolerate immoral / evil acts. In that case the state shares in the responsibility for these acts, and hence does evil. The recognition of "gay marriages", with a variety of practical support in typical scenarios, is hence not licit to the state, if "gay marriages" are immoral / evil.
In summary, it is an entirely consistent and indeed prudent position to say that on one hand the state should in general keep out of bedrooms but on the other hand insist that it should only support heterosexual marriages. That is not a question of guts, but of practical wisdom.
I'm not sure the grounds a non-theocratic state could use to determine that two women sharing a life together (for example) is "evil". Perhaps you could explain?
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
'I wish people would stop freaking trying to have it both ways.'
That would probably require a three-some ...
I imagine
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
'I wish people would stop freaking trying to have it both ways.'
That would probably require a three-some ...
I imagine
(oh dear i don t know what got into me ..)
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Even in polygamy the sexual act remains between one man and one woman (biological "mechanics" enforces this), it remains ordered to procreation ...
quote:
...Rather it is necessary that one can perform the "correct mechanics" that belong to conceiving (but not necessarily result in) children. ...
Gotcha. Slot A and Tab B. Of all the things that marriage has been, is, and shall be, apparently sticking a penis into a vagina is its essential, defining characteristic. Which is something all mammals do, not just humans. If that's not devaluing marriage, I don't know what is.
quote:
... If you entered into marriage with the firm conviction that you never wish to have children, though you reasonably could, then according to the RC Canon Law at least (Can. 1101 §2) you are indeed not (sacramentally) married. ...
You've just given me a great idea for those that want to maintain a special distinction for the Slot A / Tab B form of marriage: from now on, those marriages will be called "sacramental marriage" and all others - civil, same-sex, common-law - marriages will be just "marriage". Whaddya say? OliviaG
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
You've just given me a great idea for those that want to maintain a special distinction for the Slot A / Tab B form of marriage: from now on, those marriages will be called "sacramental marriage" and all others - civil, same-sex, common-law - marriages will be just "marriage". Whaddya say? OliviaG
But our marriage is a "Slot A / Tab B" marriage, just not one that is intended to be "fruitful".
Personally I find it slightly odd to be told that a marriage that was contracted in the context of a Eucharist is not sacramental. I thank God (once again) that I am not a Roman Catholic.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
One thing I find very useful and educational about these threads is that when those who are opposed to gay marriage are pressed, they so often reveal their arguments to be rooted in institutional sexism.
Why must marriage be male/female?
Off we go with the pseudo-scientific use of Genesis about women being created for men and men being created first and women later (Here's a clue - biological research demonstrates that last bit is false.)
Then we get the other sort of sample argument:
Why when marriage is about people who are equals loving each other and cleaving to each other for life should this be denied to gay couples who can clearly do that?
'Ah but you misunderstand! Marriage is all about procreation!'
'Er what? Nobody does that to straight couples'
'Oh but we do, we totally do, you women had better want to birth them babies or your marriage is invalid!'
'Really? So if I'm not prepared to put myself through a life-threatening experience where I could end up dead or permanently damaged and with my genitals torn to shreds and to commit myself to child rearing regardless of anything else that might be a purpose in my life, my marriage aint valid? Would you like some detailed instructions on what you can do with that, Mr Not-Going-Through-Childbirth Ever?'
Then we get the other style of argument where the rhetoric of sexism is turned against gay people 'equal but different and WE the people who have discriminated against you for thousands of years get to define what equal is and what is good enough for you!'
Anyone who doubts that straight people and especially women should stand shoulder to shoulder with gay people can see that this is not a gay issue but a justice issue and one that especially affects women. The attack on gay marriage is really an attack on modern egalitarian marriage without rigid gender roles. Equally, without the development of the modern companionate egalitarian marriage, you wouldn't have the wish for that to be opened up to LGBT people.
Misunderstanding this history is where a lot of arguments miss the point. The template for modern gay marriage didn't exist in antiquity. Marriage then was hierarchical - the rare 'gay marriages' of antiquity were hierarchical marriage being extended to same-sex partners because you could still get a hierarchical relationship - older/younger, citizen/freed slave which allowed concepts of marriage based on the supremacy of the male free citizen as head of the household to still function (though not without causing a lot of anxiety about whether that was, in fact, being threatened).
Once you reject the hierarchical 'headship' marriage and its emphasis on procreation to free women from thousands of years of institutional abuse, it follows that there is no good reason for not opening this understanding of marriage to gay people.
If however, the way you anchor your faith is by some version of infallible tradition or infallible scripture, you are left having to justify the old sexist ideas of marriage as an institution or admit that on some subjects your preferred method of authority is holed below the waterline and implicated in the abuse of millions of people over thousands of years.
The result is a version of denialism where in order to keep the validation model for faith and belief intact, the terrible results of this for women and gay people have to be brushed under the carpet or denied or justified. We are collateral damage so the image of the infallible tradition or infallible scripture may be kept intact.
L
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Anyone who doubts that straight people and especially women should stand shoulder to shoulder with gay people can see that this is not a gay issue but a justice issue and one that especially affects women. The attack on gay marriage is really an attack on modern egalitarian marriage without rigid gender roles. Equally, without the development of the modern companionate egalitarian marriage, you wouldn't have the wish for that to be opened up to LGBT people.
Misunderstanding this history is where a lot of arguments miss the point. The template for modern gay marriage didn't exist in antiquity. Marriage then was hierarchical - the rare 'gay marriages' of antiquity were hierarchical marriage being extended to same-sex partners because you could still get a hierarchical relationship - older/younger, citizen/freed slave which allowed concepts of marriage based on the supremacy of the male free citizen as head of the household to still function (though not without causing a lot of anxiety about whether that was, in fact, being threatened).
Once you reject the hierarchical 'headship' marriage and its emphasis on procreation to free women from thousands of years of institutional abuse, it follows that there is no good reason for not opening this understanding of marriage to gay people.
If however, the way you anchor your faith is by some version of infallible tradition or infallible scripture, you are left having to justify the old sexist ideas of marriage as an institution or admit that on some subjects your preferred method of authority is holed below the waterline and implicated in the abuse of millions of people over thousands of years.
The result is a version of denialism where in order to keep the validation model for faith and belief intact, the terrible results of this for women and gay people have to be brushed under the carpet or denied or justified. We are collateral damage so the image of the infallible tradition or infallible scripture may be kept intact.
L
Amen
X10000000000000!
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
One thing I find very useful and educational about these threads is that when those who are opposed to gay marriage are pressed, they so often reveal their arguments to be rooted in institutional sexism.
Why must marriage be male/female?
Off we go with the pseudo-scientific use of Genesis about women being created for men and men being created first and women later (Here's a clue - biological research demonstrates that last bit is false.)
Then we get the other sort of sample argument:
Why when marriage is about people who are equals loving each other and cleaving to each other for life should this be denied to gay couples who can clearly do that?
'Ah but you misunderstand! Marriage is all about procreation!'
'Er what? Nobody does that to straight couples'
'Oh but we do, we totally do, you women had better want to birth them babies or your marriage is invalid!'
'Really? So if I'm not prepared to put myself through a life-threatening experience where I could end up dead or permanently damaged and with my genitals torn to shreds and to commit myself to child rearing regardless of anything else that might be a purpose in my life, my marriage aint valid? Would you like some detailed instructions on what you can do with that, Mr Not-Going-Through-Childbirth Ever?'
Then we get the other style of argument where the rhetoric of sexism is turned against gay people 'equal but different and WE the people who have discriminated against you for thousands of years get to define what equal is and what is good enough for you!'
Anyone who doubts that straight people and especially women should stand shoulder to shoulder with gay people can see that this is not a gay issue but a justice issue and one that especially affects women. The attack on gay marriage is really an attack on modern egalitarian marriage without rigid gender roles. Equally, without the development of the modern companionate egalitarian marriage, you wouldn't have the wish for that to be opened up to LGBT people.
Misunderstanding this history is where a lot of arguments miss the point. The template for modern gay marriage didn't exist in antiquity. Marriage then was hierarchical - the rare 'gay marriages' of antiquity were hierarchical marriage being extended to same-sex partners because you could still get a hierarchical relationship - older/younger, citizen/freed slave which allowed concepts of marriage based on the supremacy of the male free citizen as head of the household to still function (though not without causing a lot of anxiety about whether that was, in fact, being threatened).
Once you reject the hierarchical 'headship' marriage and its emphasis on procreation to free women from thousands of years of institutional abuse, it follows that there is no good reason for not opening this understanding of marriage to gay people.
If however, the way you anchor your faith is by some version of infallible tradition or infallible scripture, you are left having to justify the old sexist ideas of marriage as an institution or admit that on some subjects your preferred method of authority is holed below the waterline and implicated in the abuse of millions of people over thousands of years.
The result is a version of denialism where in order to keep the validation model for faith and belief intact, the terrible results of this for women and gay people have to be brushed under the carpet or denied or justified. We are collateral damage so the image of the infallible tradition or infallible scripture may be kept intact.
L
May I quote the last paragraph?
[ 30. October 2011, 18:31: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by wilson (# 37) on
:
I understand and share the desire the applaud Louise's excellent post. But surely that can be done without quoting the whole thing? Twice!
Pretty please?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That's pretty much how the old (and now invalid) UK line of authorities reasoned. If it was necessary to beat your wife in order to have sex with her, the beating was certainly a criminal assault, but the sex, to which you had a pre-determined consent, was not 'rape'.
This is however not quite my argument. Clearly one can inflict pain and injury to body and mind with genitals just as with fists, so I see no particular reason why one should not consider "genital assault" itself as criminal, even if a general consent had been given (and then unreasonably withdrawn). For such acts the word "rape" would be common.
I know that isn’t your argument. I would never remotely suspect you of trying to justify marital rape or any other form of abuse.
However arguments from the same basic philosophical position have been so used, and it is (in the UK at least) the modern emphasis on consent as the dominant principle in sexual ethics that have killed off that way of thinking (God willing, for good).
quote:
Hence if gay sex is evil by its very nature, then clearly such secular arrangements (unreasonably called "gay marriages") cannot be argued for in analogy to marriage at all.
I agree with you there. The state ought not to promote what it knows to be evil. But you need to have a coherent moral philosophy that judges gay (so-called) marriage to be evil before that issue arises. Modern Western society doesn’t have one. It does have principles which are generally accepted and reflected in social attitudes and in laws which govern sexual ethics, but those are NOT adequate to condemn homosexuality or determine that gay marriage is intrinsically evil.
As such modern society can ban gay marriage only on an unprincipled basis. The ban would not be (is not) consistent with the values and convictions which inform the rest of our laws.
Orfeo’s post above is correct:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can see two logically consistent grounds for saying no to same-sex marriage. One is taht marriages are for childbearing. The other is that homosexual sex is intrinsically wrong. Now, I'm sure there are people around, including right here on the Ship, who think one or both of those things are true. BUT THE LAWS DON'T SUPPORT THEM. The Marriage Act in this country hasn't said anything about childbearing in the last 50 to 60 years, and quite possibly not EVER. And homosexual sex has been decriminalised for a few decades now.
The difference between us seems to be that I think that consistency in principles is a legislative virtue, and you appear not to. I think that there ought ideally to be some justification from widely accepted values behind our laws, and in particular, behind laws which so drastically affect the lives of a large number of people. If we, as a society, are going to forbid a class of people from marrying, then it ought at least to be for some moral conviction which we as a society as a whole are prepared to defend. We ought not to do it for reasons which are defensible only on the basis of values held by a minority group whose sources of authority the majority reject.
You appear to be arguing that moral consistency in law is a fool’s errand anyway, and that the state should therefore not permit gays to marry, even though it might be that not one person in ten holds to any sort of ethical system that provides the ghost of a reason to distinguish them morally from straights. I will admit to being very surprised that you take this line, since you are normally a quite formidable exponent of the moral coherence and consistency of the Catholic Church’s teachings, and I had (I think not unreasonably) assumed that having a sound philosophical basis for ethics was a thing of some importance to you. You seem to be denying the need for (or even the applicability of) sound moral reasoning in a secular legal context, provided that an incoherent ethical system can be made to arrive at the right result. Have I misunderstood?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, once again, if consent is "pre-determined" in marriage, how is can any sex within marriage be considered "rape", and if it is possible (not "allowed", just "possible") to withhold consent within marriage, how can consent be considered "pre-determined" or non-revisable?
Perhaps an analogy will help. You promise me, contractually, the free use of your car (though within reason). However, you still keep it in your garage to which only you have a key. One day I ask you for the car, but you refuse to open the garage with your key for no particular reason. Whereupon I beat you until you give me the garage key and then drive off with the car. Was that a robbery, or not? Well, that will depend on the definition of robbery. Is the situation somewhat different from the same situation but where no prior consent to the car use had been given? Certainly. However, this does not per se justify my actions.
So I would say three things: Firstly, whether something like "marital rape" can exist depends on how precisely one defines rape. Secondly, irrespective of the precise definition, the act so labeled is clearly a crime. Thirdly, that crime is lesser - all other things considered equal - than when no prior consent was obtained. That much seems clear, the rest is for lawyers and policy makers to work out.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure the grounds a non-theocratic state could use to determine that two women sharing a life together (for example) is "evil". Perhaps you could explain?
Two women sharing a life together are not a problem. Two women having sex with each other are however misusing their sexuality, which is immoral. And two women who consider each other lovers, i.e., partners in a relationship ordered to sex, are at least playing with fire.
As mentioned, I do not think that it is prudent for the state to prosecute such immorality. However, neither is it licit to support it. The proper way to deal with various injustices that could arise in the modern world is the Tasmanian one (as reported here). If the state wishes to have a "significant other" to talk to in cases of medical and/or social emergency, then the state should not require that this "significant other" must be in a "love relationship". Leave these matters to the individuals, continuing the hands-off policy concerning sex.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Gotcha. Slot A and Tab B. Of all the things that marriage has been, is, and shall be, apparently sticking a penis into a vagina is its essential, defining characteristic. Which is something all mammals do, not just humans. If that's not devaluing marriage, I don't know what is.
Firstly, this is simply unfair rhetoric. I'm discussing the essence of marriage, the "what it is", not absolutely everything that marriage has ever meant to somebody on earth. Likewise, if I were to defend the following definition of dance: "to move one's feet or body, or both, rhythmically in a pattern of steps, especially to the accompaniment of music" (dictionary.com), then it would be unfair rhetoric to insist on the importance of tango for the social life of Argentina or to point out that dancing is frequently a language of romance between a (prospective) couple. Not because these things are wrong or illusory, but because they are super-added to the essence of dance.
Secondly, while marriage is primarily ordered to the procreation and education of children, it is secondarily ordered to the unity of the spouses (through company and mutual assistance), and a lawful remedy to concupiscence. So there is more to the essence of marriage, we simply have not had a need to discuss this.
Thirdly, you seem to think that it is an argument against the traditional view that all mammals have sex of some kind. I have no idea why you would think so. That all animals eat and drink is no argument against the Lord appearing under the species of bread and wine.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
You've just given me a great idea for those that want to maintain a special distinction for the Slot A / Tab B form of marriage: from now on, those marriages will be called "sacramental marriage" and all others - civil, same-sex, common-law - marriages will be just "marriage". Whaddya say?
Let me consult Humpty Dumpty on that.
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Personally I find it slightly odd to be told that a marriage that was contracted in the context of a Eucharist is not sacramental.
Why? It is not the Eucharist that makes the marriage, but your exchange of vows.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Off we go with the pseudo-scientific use of Genesis about women being created for men and men being created first and women later (Here's a clue - biological research demonstrates that last bit is false.)
Biological research could potentially demonstrate something about that, if a biological claim was made in Genesis. While this is not the case, biology is rather unequivocal about the evolution of sex being ordered to procreation.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
'Really? So if I'm not prepared to put myself through a life-threatening experience where I could end up dead or permanently damaged and with my genitals torn to shreds and to commit myself to child rearing regardless of anything else that might be a purpose in my life, my marriage aint valid? Would you like some detailed instructions on what you can do with that, Mr Not-Going-Through-Childbirth Ever?'
Yes. No. Genesis 3:16-18.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The attack on gay marriage is really an attack on modern egalitarian marriage without rigid gender roles.
This at least is worth discussing. I would agree that the current "marriage system" is at odds with both Christianity and biology. I would disagree that the only alternative is extreme patriarchy.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
As such modern society can ban gay marriage only on an unprincipled basis. The ban would not be (is not) consistent with the values and convictions which inform the rest of our laws.
True. However, if we are so principled, then modern society cannot grant any marriages. For it comprehensively lacks a moral system that could support this. If the state nevertheless claims that it has business with marriage, then one can also ask it to not grant "gay marriage": by virtue of the very same inconsistency. The state is namely then implicitly borrowing traditional principle to justify its actions, and it is not fair to use only part of that. Again, I support the "Tasmanian solution". What modern society can do based on its own principles is to grant the establishment of "favored relationships" based strictly on the individuals' unfettered choice. I suggest to not call these marriages though, since - well - they generally aren't.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The difference between us seems to be that I think that consistency in principles is a legislative virtue, and you appear not to.
I do not share your optimism about the principles of modern society. I think they are skin-deep at best even taken in their own right, and quickly crumble under competent critique (which these days just as likely comes from the evil utilitarian fringe of Peter Singer et al., as from religious figures). Furthermore, I consider these principles to be flawed. So while it would be nice to have consistency in principles in the law, it is more important that the law is good than that it is consistent. So I cannot simply support any change of the law, just because it is consistently based on principle. For example, I'm sure that the Nazis produced a highly principled and comparatively consistent body of law. This however is reason to oppose their laws more, not less.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You seem to be denying the need for (or even the applicability of) sound moral reasoning in a secular legal context, provided that an incoherent ethical system can be made to arrive at the right result. Have I misunderstood?
The primary moral imperative is to do good and to avoid evil, not to reason. It is better to do good not properly knowing why, than to reason oneself brilliantly into evil. Of course, the value of a legal system that bases its laws on sound reasoning from good principles is tremendous. However, these are not the times for playing the ethical snob. Neither law nor society in the West have fully shaken of Christ's yoke, and who am I to hasten that process in the name of consistency? If society were to embrace Christian principles (again), I certainly would be all for applying them consistently to everything.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Off we go with the pseudo-scientific use of Genesis about women being created for men and men being created first and women later (Here's a clue - biological research demonstrates that last bit is false.)
Biological research could potentially demonstrate something about that, if a biological claim was made in Genesis. While this is not the case, biology is rather unequivocal about the evolution of sex being ordered to procreation.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
'Really? So if I'm not prepared to put myself through a life-threatening experience where I could end up dead or permanently damaged and with my genitals torn to shreds and to commit myself to child rearing regardless of anything else that might be a purpose in my life, my marriage aint valid? Would you like some detailed instructions on what you can do with that, Mr Not-Going-Through-Childbirth Ever?'
Yes. No. Genesis 3:16-18.
I'm not making some specious argument from nature. I'm pointing out that what Genesis says about women which is often quoted with great seriousness in these matters is simply flat-out wrong. It's like treating with awe and reverence a document which describes how lower castes were created from the lower body parts of a God. It's not only flat-out wrong factually but morally wrong in the conclusions it tries to draw from its pseudo-facts.
Genesis doesn't just get stuff wrong, much of what it says about women is pernicious, and has been used wickedly for centuries. You yourself quote one of the vilest parts of it, with seemingly no awareness of what's wrong with that.
But admitting that the first book in the Bible, (which is quoted in the New Testament too, by figures such as Jesus and Paul) contains something so pernicious and false, strikes so hard at ideas of scriptural/traditional authority, that either women get sacrificed or Genesis gets re-interpreted to be a 'mostly harmless' poetic myth with talking animals and the occasional plucked-out-of-context pearl.
While the latter is far preferable to the former, it still serves to dull appreciation that it's a text which has been used to stunt the lives of generations upon generations of women and it's still damaging people today. Historically, it has underpinned to a great extent the ill treatment of both gay people and women. It's no accident that the beginnings of unravelling Genesis as a 'Just So' story with blood on its hands went a long way towards women and gay people achieving the freedoms they now have.
The comparison with racism may produce greater indignation, but the anti-gay marriage arguments are actually much more related to misogynist ones.
L.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So, once again, if consent is "pre-determined" in marriage, how is can any sex within marriage be considered "rape", and if it is possible (not "allowed", just "possible") to withhold consent within marriage, how can consent be considered "pre-determined" or non-revisable?
Perhaps an analogy will help. You promise me, contractually, the free use of your car (though within reason). However, you still keep it in your garage to which only you have a key. One day I ask you for the car, but you refuse to open the garage with your key for no particular reason. Whereupon I beat you until you give me the garage key and then drive off with the car. Was that a robbery, or not? Well, that will depend on the definition of robbery.
The usual definition of robbery is theft by force or threat of force. As such, the situation you describe is not robbery. There's the use of force, but taking something to which you're legally entitled is not considered theft, so one of the elements of the crime is missing. In other words, the situation you describe is assault, not robbery.
The biggest problem I have with this analogy (and your other attempts at analogizing/explaining) is that it explicitly buys in to the idea that "it's not really rape unless it involves a sizable amount of non-sexual assault as well".
A better analogy, one that gets at the key issue without adding in secondary considerations of non-sexual assault, would be to suppose you've been contractually granted the use of a car. The car's owner then refuses you the use, without revising the contract. You take the car anyway. Is that theft?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So I would say three things: Firstly, whether something like "marital rape" can exist depends on how precisely one defines rape.
The definition that got you so bent out of shape was "non-consensual sex". You seem to implicitly add a bunch of other conditions to qualify as "really rape".
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Secondly, irrespective of the precise definition, the act so labeled is clearly a crime. Thirdly, that crime is lesser - all other things considered equal - than when no prior consent was obtained. That much seems clear, the rest is for lawyers and policy makers to work out.
Ah yes, the old "it's not rape if she's a slut" defense, where it's assumed any prior granting of consent gives carte blanche to do whatever you like to your victim. A classic of the genre! Of course, this is more or less where we came in, when you asserted this point more or less exactly, though only within the confines of marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure the grounds a non-theocratic state could use to determine that two women sharing a life together (for example) is "evil". Perhaps you could explain?
Two women sharing a life together are not a problem. Two women having sex with each other are however misusing their sexuality, which is immoral. And two women who consider each other lovers, i.e., partners in a relationship ordered to sex, are at least playing with fire.
As mentioned, I do not think that it is prudent for the state to prosecute such immorality. However, neither is it licit to support it. The proper way to deal with various injustices that could arise in the modern world is the Tasmanian one (as reported here). If the state wishes to have a "significant other" to talk to in cases of medical and/or social emergency, then the state should not require that this "significant other" must be in a "love relationship". Leave these matters to the individuals, continuing the hands-off policy concerning sex.
But if such arrangements are open to homosexuals, how does that not count as "supporting it"? And if the state can grant benefits to homosexual couples without it being considered "support", why can't it consider them married.
I also note you completely ignored my question about the grounds on which a non-theocratic state could determine homosexuality is "evil", so I'm going to assume you concede the point that no such secular grounds exist.
Of course, if we start with the assumption that the state should be in the business of suppressing, or at least not supporting, religiously-defined evil, that opens a whole very messy can of worms. For example, most Christian faiths hold that the worship of other Gods is evil. It's even on the Top Ten List, unlike homosexuality. So at the very least a Hindu Temple or Islamic Mosque shouldn't get the same tax-free status as a (true) Christian Church. Otherwise that's the state "supporting evil", as you put it. At any rate, I can't see a reason why a state enforcing theocratic norms on homosexuality, as you suggest, wouldn't start enforcing theocratic norms in other areas.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
As such modern society can ban gay marriage only on an unprincipled basis. The ban would not be (is not) consistent with the values and convictions which inform the rest of our laws.
True. However, if we are so principled, then modern society cannot grant any marriages. For it comprehensively lacks a moral system that could support this. If the state nevertheless claims that it has business with marriage, then one can also ask it to not grant "gay marriage": by virtue of the very same inconsistency. The state is namely then implicitly borrowing traditional principle to justify its actions, and it is not fair to use only part of that. Again, I support the "Tasmanian solution". What modern society can do based on its own principles is to grant the establishment of "favored relationships" based strictly on the individuals' unfettered choice. I suggest to not call these marriages though, since - well - they generally aren't.
Does not follow. Primarily because your argument entirely relies on society in general agreeing with you what constitutes a marriage. If society in general thinks of a marriage in terms other than yours, then society in general is perfectly entitled to approve of and grant marriages.
It's been a long, long time since secular law and Catholic doctrine on marriages coincided. Remarriage of divorcees being the clear example. The Catholic Church is free to decide on its own rules for what marriages it will and will not recognise, but I don't think it can behave as if it's in a position to dictate that the secular law must apply the same rules. Especially not when other churches don't even apply the same rules (divorcees again).
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Back from RL and feeling sorry for poor wickle Ingo, all on his own.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If society in general thinks of a marriage in terms other than yours, then society in general is perfectly entitled to approve of and grant marriages.
What is this society of which you speak?
Part of my frustration is that, ISTM, there is a certain circularity in the argument. Advocates for gay marriage are claiming that we need to catch up with popular opinion in society and yet I'm left wondering why it is such a contentious issue if it already has overwhelming support.
Supporters and opponents of gay marriage hold their positions for a mixture of reasons - some rational, some not; some consistent, some not. I'm not defending that, it is simply is.
I appreciate that people like me (who just don't get it yet) must really try the patience of the supporters but isn't that just how the democratic process works?
Speaking as someone who is currently opposed to gay marriage it does feel sometimes as if the political process is played both ways: it is good when surveys are quoted claiming support for gay marriage but it is bad when other political groups lobby the other way.
Personally I don't take much notice of surveys on any issue. I'd be much more comfortable saying that society is in favour of gay marriage once legislation has been passed than the other way round.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I'm pointing out that what Genesis says about women which is often quoted with great seriousness in these matters is simply flat-out wrong.
You may believe so, but you certainly haven't shown so. Strictly speaking you have not even made your case against a literalistic interpretation yet. You just went "the biology is wrong, therefore ... nudge, nudge, wink, wink," hoping that modern prejudice will fill in the gaping holes of your non-argument.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It's like treating with awe and reverence a document which describes how lower castes were created from the lower body parts of a God. It's not only flat-out wrong factually but morally wrong in the conclusions it tries to draw from its pseudo-facts.
Interesting. Actual medieval argument along these lines by St. Thomas Aquinas: "I answer that, It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man. First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither "use authority over man," and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man's contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet. Secondly, for the sacramental signification; for from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross the Sacraments flowed - namely, blood and water - on which the Church was established." Not that one has to put stock in all that, but if one goes on about the significance of body parts, then it is important to note that Eve was made from Adam's side.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You yourself quote one of the vilest parts of it, with seemingly no awareness of what's wrong with that.
If you weren't so terribly caught up in your belligerent ideology, you might be able to see the significance of things being listed as SNAFU there. Were the epidural and the plow evil inventions? No.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
The comparison with racism may produce greater indignation, but the anti-gay marriage arguments are actually much more related to misogynist ones.
While I reject both charges, this correctly locates the debate.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A better analogy, one that gets at the key issue without adding in secondary considerations of non-sexual assault, would be to suppose you've been contractually granted the use of a car. The car's owner then refuses you the use, without revising the contract. You take the car anyway. Is that theft?
This is not a better analogy. The severity and kind of violence may well vary, but the necessity to prove that a rape has actually take place will practically speaking not allow prosecution for cases which you imagine here (i.e., where the sum total of resistance was a statement that sex was unwanted) in most cases. Nevertheless, to the extent that one can try such cases as "marital rape" in the modern system, one could consider them also as "sexual assault" in the old. Overt physical damage is in principle not necessary for either (though as mentioned in practice generally needed to make a case).
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The definition that got you so bent out of shape was "non-consensual sex". You seem to implicitly add a bunch of other conditions to qualify as "really rape".
The problem with that definition is that here consent can be at the same time given (through the contract) and withdrawn (through the present behaviour). One can solve this issue by claiming that such a contract is illicit because consent can never be given but in the present. We can discuss that, of course, but it is simply not fair to judge a system that does not make this assumption in terms deriving from a system that does.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ah yes, the old "it's not rape if she's a slut" defense, where it's assumed any prior granting of consent gives carte blanche to do whatever you like to your victim. A classic of the genre!
Kindly stop putting words in my mouth. I have said nothing of this sort, indeed, I have consistently argued against this from the beginning.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But if such arrangements are open to homosexuals, how does that not count as "supporting it"? And if the state can grant benefits to homosexual couples without it being considered "support", why can't it consider them married.
If a "favoured relationship" can be claimed without any reference to sex, then the sexual orientation of the claimants simply plays no role. The state is then supporting the making of arrangements to deal with insurances and so forth, it is not making a statement about what kind of sexuality is good. Furthermore, the state cannot consider gays to be married to each other for the same reason that it cannot consider a tomato to be a kind of fish.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I also note you completely ignored my question about the grounds on which a non-theocratic state could determine homosexuality is "evil", so I'm going to assume you concede the point that no such secular grounds exist.
Well, no, I do not concede that point and I did actually not completely ignore that question. The key statement was "Two women having sex with each other are however misusing their sexuality, which is immoral." (italics added) Homosexuality is wrong by natural moral law as misuse of the sexual faculty. The problem is however that while natural moral law could and should be the basis of secular law, it de facto isn't. Furthermore, natural moral law is actually not trivial at all. It does not mean that morality is based on the first thing that comes to people's minds when thinking about some moral case, etc.
Since I consider it prudent for the state to stay out of bedrooms, and since I consider the state to be sadly ignorant of natural moral law at the present time, I would indeed prefer to sidestep the difficult discussion of the applicability of natural moral law to bedrooms by invoking prudence.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, I can't see a reason why a state enforcing theocratic norms on homosexuality, as you suggest, wouldn't start enforcing theocratic norms in other areas.
Where I have suggested what enforcing? I think we have simply seen the state devolve from the key maintainer of the common good of a specific national community to a kind of formal place holder for negotiations between various interest groups and communities loosely associated by geographic accident.
Maybe all this is for the better. One could see this as re-establishing subsidiarity in the governance of morals. Perhaps the government should step back on these matters as much as possible on principle, and leave it up to "lower parts of the governance hierarchy" to sort out the practicalities in a more local manner.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If society in general thinks of a marriage in terms other than yours, then society in general is perfectly entitled to approve of and grant marriages.
Sure, and I am then entitled to believe that society is not actually dealing with marriages there, but with something else, misapplying the word "marriage" which used to have - and to me still has - a clear meaning.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
IngoB,
I think we hit a fundamental philosophical difference. You seem to believe that not having a consistent morality is crippling. Unfortunately for you the world is big and complex. It is bigger than you or I and far more complex. Anyone who can claim to understand the whole world at a moral level is claiming they are understanding something orders of magnitude more complex than themselves. Which is, of course, impossible. What you understand if you have such a consistent basis for morality is a map, pure and simple. And your fundamental mistake of treating the map you understand as the territory no one can understand is a mirror of the nihilist who throws the moral baby out with the bathwater.
And not only are you confusing the map with the territory, you are looking at parts of the map that say "Here be dragons" and warning us of the dragons your map shows. This, of course, cuts no ice at all with the inhabitants of the regions marked with dragons on your map.
Ultimately the world is more complex than we can understand and although a good map is useful for things you do not have experience of. It also doesn't help that maps need updating when the circumstances change. And this only makes your map more ludicrous - claiming that no one lives in the area marked "here be dragons" when I've walked round the city there.
Apparently the vows not the sacrament are the important part of marriage. This alone should tell you that a gay marriage is the same as a sacramental marriage. Are you denying the ability for one gay person to swear vows to another and mean them? If the vows are the important part then a gay marriage is completely licit. It's only if the sacrament is the important part that there's a difference.
But the Catholics had decent mapmakers once. People who could push the boundaries. Let's see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the nature of sin:
quote:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
1854 Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,129 became part of the tradition of the
Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.
1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner's will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
Let's look at the definition of mortal sin for a second as defined by your own Catechism. "Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him."
Does loving someone of your own gender destroy charity in the heart of man? I can think of nothing that inspires charity more than allowing genuine love to flourish.
Does prohibiting people from loving their fellow people simply because of their gender destroy charity in the heart of man? Yes, a thousand times yes. Telling people "Thou shalt not love that person and you are evil for trying to do so" will twist and destroy their ability to love and to charity.
Does the bigotry preached by the Roman Catholic Church therefore constitute a mortal sin? In principle. It attacks the vital principle in us - that is charity.
But there's more to the definition of a mortal sin. It must be about a grave matter as defined - i.e. "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."
There are only two commandments that apply here. Adultery is the obvious one and largely irrelevant to the issues at hand. It just means cheating after the marriage and has nothing to say about whether a gay marriage is possible. The important one is the commandment on false witness.
When gay couples swear wedding vows they are not committing false witness. They mean every word they say - I take it you at least have the charity in you to accept that.
However when you claim that gay marriage is an oxymoron then you are point blank committing false witness. Marriage is a civil institution as well as a religious one. And even if you discount civil marriages the Quakers for one have been (religiously) marrying gay people for a long time now. Do you deny that any Quaker marriages are valid? You might claim that a Roman Catholic Gay Marriage is an oxymoron (based on the claim in the Catechism that " tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."" (see: here be dragons on old maps). But do you deny that other denominations can marry people?
However I suspect that this is going to prove fruitless. Because although the sections on sin don't claim anything about being gay, there needed to be a separate passage inserted about it.
quote:
More from the Catechism:
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Translating sentence by sentence: Being gay means being attracted to your own sex. Even we know different manifestations are different but we'll treat everything as the same so we don't have to worry about being wrong. We don't understand it. People have thought it to be icky and written that down, so we'll do the same and claim that the manifestations they were talking about are the same as all others. Because we say so. And sex should be all about the babies. Or about gender roles, the idea of equality not being something we get. So we're just going to say no.
As for modern morality only being skin deep, possibly. The skin is the largest organ of the human body. It's fascinating, complex, self-reparing, and absolutely critical to human survival. It's a large part of how we perceive the world, containing the most intimate of all senses, and a large part of how we interact with our fellow humans. It warns us of danger, lets us know when things feel unpleasant, and holds the sense through which we (or at least I) feel the greatest pleasure (and I mean touch, not sex). I am very happy to say that modern morality is like the skin, whereas the morality you espouse is like the heart - a mechanical pump, protected from interaction, awful at self repair, and that can be transplanted. But is placed on a pedestal because it is hard to get at and is a single point of failure - and one that must be protected at almost all costs rather than one that helps protect me. The more I think about it, the better I find the skin/heart analogy to be.
And on preview, I am absolutely appalled to see that you seem to be claiming that an inability to prosecute rape cases means that they aren't rapes when assault hasn't taken place.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And on preview, I am absolutely appalled to see that you seem to be claiming that an inability to prosecute rape cases means that they aren't rapes when assault hasn't taken place.
IngoB's not claiming that.
He's claiming that whether or not you call sex with a not-presently-consenting spouse "rape" or not, it should certainly be criminal, but that without evidence of force, it might be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Which is right - any allegation of sexual assault, where the other party asserts consent, is hard to establish if there is no additional evidence of force. The test is 'beyond reasonable doubt' after all. That doesn't mean that because there's no compelling proof it didn't happen.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And on preview, I am absolutely appalled to see that you seem to be claiming that an inability to prosecute rape cases means that they aren't rapes when assault hasn't taken place.
IngoB's not claiming that.
He's claiming that whether or not you call sex with a not-presently-consenting spouse "rape" or not, it should certainly be criminal, but that without evidence of force, it might be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Which is right - any allegation of sexual assault, where the other party asserts consent, is hard to establish if there is no additional evidence of force. The test is 'beyond reasonable doubt' after all. That doesn't mean that because there's no compelling proof it didn't happen.
Nonsense. IngoB is arguing about definitions, not legal practicalities. (Except in his last post, where he changes ground suddenly.) Claiming that rape isn't rape without a conviction is like claiming Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman weren't really murdered because no one has been convicted of the act.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I think we hit a fundamental philosophical difference. You seem to believe that not having a consistent morality is crippling.
Not really, no. However, where we can know what is right and what is wrong, there obfuscation is indeed crippling.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Anyone who can claim to understand the whole world at a moral level is claiming they are understanding something orders of magnitude more complex than themselves. Which is, of course, impossible.
So much for the natural sciences then. Since the world is undeniably more complex than the individual researcher, or indeed all researchers put together, we should just throw our hands in the air and go home.
Yet water flows downhill and sex is ordered to procreation. We can understand a lot, definitely enough to make a big difference.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And your fundamental mistake of treating the map you understand as the territory no one can understand is a mirror of the nihilist who throws the moral baby out with the bathwater.
Lovely cartoon, like most of xkcd's offerings. It is somewhat difficult to guess why you consider it relevant though. Following my best guess, I'll just point out that this is not about one guy complaining that we are too heavy to fly and the other guy jumping off a cliff in response. In which case the outcome would be, splat.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Apparently the vows not the sacrament are the important part of marriage. This alone should tell you that a gay marriage is the same as a sacramental marriage. Are you denying the ability for one gay person to swear vows to another and mean them? If the vows are the important part then a gay marriage is completely licit. It's only if the sacrament is the important part that there's a difference.
You appear mightily confused. Firstly, clearly gays can vow all sorts of things to each other. One thing they cannot vow to each other is however "a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." (Can. 1096 §1) That is what marriage is, but neither are they man and woman, nor is their sexual cooperation ordered to procreation. I can vow to you to bring you some stardust from Alpha Centauri, and you can vow to me to remember a trillion digits of pi, but such vows are worthless because they cannot correspond to reality.
Secondly, the vows - or more precisely any expressed consent of the parties to contract marriage - are the sacrament. If you want to be precise, the matter of the sacrament is the mutual offering of rights, and its form is their mutual acceptance. There is nothing "special" going on in a Christian marriage contract that would distinguish sacramental marriage from other marriages. Rather if the contracting parties are baptized, then their marriage contract will be sacramental if valid (Can. 1055 §2). It is being Christian that is the key here.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Does loving someone of your own gender destroy charity in the heart of man? I can think of nothing that inspires charity more than allowing genuine love to flourish.
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with non-romantic love for someone of the same gender. Secondly, as Matt 22:36-40 points out, the primary commandment is to love God, the secondary one to love man. It is highly unfortunate if one is pitted against the other, but it unequivocal which one should "win" in such cases.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Does prohibiting people from loving their fellow people simply because of their gender destroy charity in the heart of man? Yes, a thousand times yes. Telling people "Thou shalt not love that person and you are evil for trying to do so" will twist and destroy their ability to love and to charity.
To the contrary, only the truth shall set them free of their slavery to sin (John 8:31-36). That said, one should not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick (Matt 12:18-20). Thus suaviter in modo, fortiter in re (gentle in manner, resolute in the matter) does it as far as pastoral care is concerned. Frank discussion is one thing, taking spiritual care of people quite another.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But there's more to the definition of a mortal sin. It must be about a grave matter as defined - i.e. "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."
Not "i.e.", but "e.g.". Grave matter cannot be reduced to the Ten Commandments.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When gay couples swear wedding vows they are not committing false witness. They mean every word they say - I take it you at least have the charity in you to accept that.
A gay couple swearing wedding vows and meaning every word they say would be clinically insane. I'm not sure whether that counts as false witness technically speaking, probably not on account of absent culpability. Of course, what you actually mean is that gays can swear vows to each other that in some non-essential aspects resemble marriage. That is undoubtedly true. They might even copy at least some of the words used in the traditional rite. That's possible because those rites come from times when sex was not openly discussed, the idea of a "gay marriage" was unheard of, and being childless usually was considered a curse. Basically, nobody needed a doctrinal reminder, and it would have been deemed totally inappropriate to go into "mechanical" details.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However when you claim that gay marriage is an oxymoron then you are point blank committing false witness.
False witness to whom and/or what?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But do you deny that other denominations can marry people?
No denomination can marry people as such. Only a couple can marry itself, with potentially the Church as witness before God. Marriage is a contract between husband and wife, the Church can merely play the properly accredited notary. Such a contract between baptized persons will furthermore be sacramental.
There is no possibility of such a contract between a gay couple. Not because the Church or some other institution says so. Simply because the terms and conditions of the marriage contract do not and cannot apply. A gay couple does not consist of man and woman, and they cannot have "procreation-ordered" sex. End of story. It is quite literally irrelevant what the state, the Quakers or anybody else has to say about that.
Of course, one can do a Humpty-Dumpty and simply call "marriage" some other contract that a gay couple in fact can make validly. That's not so much a question of morals as such, but of the abuse of language to fight a proxy war over a moral and social issue.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
IngoB's not claiming that. He's claiming that whether or not you call sex with a not-presently-consenting spouse "rape" or not, it should certainly be criminal, but that without evidence of force, it might be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Correct, thank you.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nonsense. IngoB is arguing about definitions, not legal practicalities.
Not nonsense, Eliab summarized it well. What did you think "will practically speaking not allow prosecution" and "to the extent that one can try such cases as "marital rape" in the modern system" was intended to mean?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
clearly gays can vow all sorts of things to each other. One thing they cannot vow to each other is however "a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104
Only if you think that the only authority on marriage is The Vatican.
There are many other authorities.
Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?
[ 31. October 2011, 20:45: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
[QUOTE]A gay couple swearing wedding vows and meaning every word they say would be clinically insane. can try such cases as "marital rape" in the modern system"[/i] was intended to mean?
I read somewhere that 'clinical insanity' is a medical term. Someone can be totally insane but still know the difference between right and wrong.
Then I read somewhere else that 'It doesn't really mean anything and is just a common term used by laypeople when commenting on human behaviour.'
The Urban Dictionary says quote:
someone who's general persona is on the mad side of normal. usually gets involved in acts of lunacy when intoxicated. these people usually deny the extent of their clinical insanity and try to find people who are more clinical than them, or at least claim that others are more mad.
So are you saying that all LGBTs who love each other are 'clinically insane', 'the mad side of normal' and that the RCC is normal and not mad, not obsessed with sex and that everyone who disagrees with it is mad?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?
This cuts both ways Leo.
Who do you think you are to tell any RC that they cannot offer up the RCC definition of marriage to society?
This was what I had in mind with my last post. In a democracy surely IngoB has every right to argue for the RCC definition of marriage to be the one that society should stick to?
As you well know, I am very grateful that I don't live in a country where RC is the state religion. However, that doesn't mean that I think RCs shouldn't be allowed to engage in the political process... if you will forgive the double negative.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Not really, no. However, where we can know what is right and what is wrong, there obfuscation is indeed crippling.
Indeed.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Anyone who can claim to understand the whole world at a moral level is claiming they are understanding something orders of magnitude more complex than themselves. Which is, of course, impossible.
So much for the natural sciences then. Since the world is undeniably more complex than the individual researcher, or indeed all researchers put together, we should just throw our hands in the air and go home.
Missing both my point and the point of the XKCD comic. Just because we can't know everything and because we don't have a single definitive map doesn't mean we should go home. We can make our own maps. We can get closer than we were. We can walk in beauty when we put down the maps and stop trying to fit the world to the bible and the Catechism. Or we can go home and say the world is complex and that only the map matters.
quote:
Yet water flows downhill and sex is ordered to procreation. We can understand a lot, definitely enough to make a big difference.
Sex is ordered to pleasure and to affirmation and to pain and to power and to many other things. By claiming that "sex is ordered to procreation" you are diminishing it into a caricature. You might as well say a knife is ordered to killing.
quote:
Following my best guess, I'll just point out that this is not about one guy complaining that we are too heavy to fly and the other guy jumping off a cliff in response. In which case the outcome would be, splat.
That "cliff" is all of six inches high. There are many many people who have jumped over it. Just because you won't (and indeed are ordered not to under any circumstance) doesn't make that cliff any more likely to kill.
quote:
You appear mightily confused. Firstly, clearly gays can vow all sorts of things to each other. One thing they cannot vow to each other is however "a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." (Can. 1096 §1) That is what marriage is,
No. That is what one large and influential organisation has inconsistently and incoherently tried to redefine marriage into. Were it to actually believe the above, post-menopausal couples would not be married because they can no more be ordered to procreation than gay couples.
The claims you are spouting about Humpty Dumpty are nothing more than a claim that you got there first, having thrown out other groups who were there before you were.
quote:
Secondly, the vows - or more precisely any expressed consent of the parties to contract marriage - are the sacrament.
Now what happens if there is no sacrament and no intent at the marriage being a sacrament. It is an exchange of vows between a loving man and woman under the law and in front of the church - and is therefore a marriage. It just is not a sacramental one?
quote:
If you want to be precise, the matter of the sacrament is the mutual offering of rights, and its form is their mutual acceptance. There is nothing "special" going on in a Christian marriage contract that would distinguish sacramental marriage from other marriages. Rather if the contracting parties are baptized, then their marriage contract will be sacramental if valid (Can. 1055 §2). It is being Christian that is the key here.
Fine. We can call your marriages Christian Sacramental Marriages. You yourself admit that not all marriages are Christian Sacramental Marriages. So why are you arguing about marriages that are not Christian Sacramental Marriages. It's not as if they affect you. Or anyone you know who does have a Christian Sacramental Marriage.
Because if being Christian is the key to being married, and sacramental is important, you've just declared at least a dozen of my friends to be bastards. You've declared Hindu marriages invalid. You've declared Muslim marriages to be invalid. You've declared Quaker marriages to be invalid. You've declared Civil marriages to be invalid.
All those are valid forms of marriage that exist irrespective of what you claim. Rome does not control marriages. And no one is saying that anyone who wants to should be able to be married in a Roman Catholic Church. But you mysteriously think that the Roman Catholic Church should have the right to dictate marriage to everyone else.
quote:
]Firstly, there's nothing wrong with non-romantic love for someone of the same gender. Secondly, as Matt 22:36-40 points out, the primary commandment is to love God, the secondary one to love man. It is highly unfortunate if one is pitted against the other, but it unequivocal which one should "win" in such cases.
Apparently your God dislikes humans loving each other. I am very glad that I grew up with the Quakers rather than with such a jealous God.
quote:
Not "i.e.", but "e.g.". Grave matter cannot be reduced to the Ten Commandments.
In which case there's a translation error. "Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man:" If it is specified by the ten commandments then yes it can. But this is a tangent.
quote:
There is no possibility of such a contract between a gay couple. Not because the Church or some other institution says so. Simply because the terms and conditions of the marriage contract do not and cannot apply. A gay couple does not consist of man and woman, and they cannot have "procreation-ordered" sex. End of story. It is quite literally irrelevant what the state, the Quakers or anybody else has to say about that.
If the Roman Catholic Church wishes to make up its own definition of a Christian Sacramental Marriage then it is free to do so. It is quite literally irrelevant what anyone else has to say about that. However your narrow definition is not the only definition of marriage there is or has been. And the rest of us are going to first point out the political power grab from you then hopefully ignore you until you become irrelevant.
quote:
Of course, one can do a Humpty-Dumpty and simply call "marriage" some other contract that a gay couple in fact can make validly.
Marriage is a contract in the eyes of the law that existed long before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Apparently your attempts to change it are fine and ours are Humpty-Dumpty. Right. No wonder we get nowhere in discussion. Only the Roman Catholic Church has the right to set any terms.
quote:
That's not so much a question of morals as such, but of the abuse of language to fight a proxy war over a moral and social issue.
In short you don't like it when other people use your historical tactics.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
IngoB's not claiming that. He's claiming that whether or not you call sex with a not-presently-consenting spouse "rape" or not, it should certainly be criminal, but that without evidence of force, it might be hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt.
Correct, thank you.
There's an is/ought issue in your posts. Is it true that the woman in a marriage contract has the right to say no to sex at any time? In which case we aren't changing much except a slight shift in emphasis. Or isn't it? And it's simply something the husband ought to pay attention to - in which case marital rape isn't against what you think the law should be.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?
This cuts both ways Leo.
Who do you think you are to tell any RC that they cannot offer up the RCC definition of marriage to society?
Fine. He can offer it up. We can say "we aren't a Roman Catholic Theocracy over here and as such your attempt to redefine this country's legal system isn't especially relevant".
quote:
This was what I had in mind with my last post. In a democracy surely IngoB has every right to argue for the RCC definition of marriage to be the one that society should stick to?
Oh, he does. He has every right to argue it. He has every right to argue openly for a Roman Catholic Theocracy.
And I have the same right to tell him to stuff it. Why are you objecting to that? Or is it one rule for the religous, one for the rest of us?
quote:
As you well know, I am very grateful that I don't live in a country where RC is the state religion. However, that doesn't mean that I think RCs shouldn't be allowed to engage in the political process... if you will forgive the double negative.
This is part of the political process. IngoB offering up the Roman Catholic definition of marriage, and the rest of us saying it will be a cold day in hell before we accept that.
However, what Ingo is offering up isn't what he thinks the situation should be. He's offering up what he claims it is. He seems to think that just because the Vatican claims that "Under no circumstances can [homosexual acts] be approved." that everyone needs to take the Vatican's definitions, and that they are the only ones that matter. What he's arguing for is at least as radical a change as the peopele who are arguing for gay marriage are arguing for. But unlike the honest claims that things ought to be the way campaigners for gay marriage think it should be, he is trying to claim that things are the way the Roman Catholic Church thinks they ought to be. There's a bait and switch in there.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Since "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, it of course enjoys no ethical support whatsoever - it doesn't exist.
Sigh.
It is not an oxymoron. It exists under that name in several countries, and has done for a number of years.
You don't want it to exist -- that's your privilege. But what you want to be a fact stopped being a fact in the eyes of the law in Canada and elsewhere.
That's why some churches are making such a big deal about not being forced to bless same-sex marriage. If these marriages weren't marriages, there wouldn't be a problem.
I do so wish people (not by any means just you) who want to talk about things as general principles or as global issues would check out what the situation is in countries other than their own.
John
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
clearly gays can vow all sorts of things to each other. One thing they cannot vow to each other is however "a permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104
Only if you think that the only authority on marriage is The Vatican.
No. Gays cannot vow this, for reasons that have nothing to do with "authority". For example, a gay couple would consist of a man and a man, right? But what did I say they cannot vow? Get it? Get it? No? Oh... well...
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?
The Body of Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So are you saying that all LGBTs who love each other are 'clinically insane', 'the mad side of normal' and that the RCC is normal and not mad, not obsessed with sex and that everyone who disagrees with it is mad?
No, I'm saying that if two gay men vow to each other that they will have sex (with each other) that is ordered to procreation, then they are as mad as a hatter.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
By claiming that "sex is ordered to procreation" you are diminishing it into a caricature. You might as well say a knife is ordered to killing.
It's more like saying that a knife is ordered to cutting, but not for example to breaking up stone. You want a pick-axe for the latter, to use a knife for it is to abuse the knife.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No. That is what one large and influential organisation has inconsistently and incoherently tried to redefine marriage into.
The point was not that this definition is right, but rather that gays cannot possibly vow this (while of a sane mind).
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Were it to actually believe the above, post-menopausal couples would not be married because they can no more be ordered to procreation than gay couples.
This is simply false, and has been dealt with already above. The sexual act has to be ordered to procreation, but it does not have to result in offspring.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The claims you are spouting about Humpty Dumpty are nothing more than a claim that you got there first, having thrown out other groups who were there before you were.
Uhh, that and completely dominating the scene for about 1.5 millennia (or if you count in polygamy, for time immemorial). Yes. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to continue language use that is so incredibly well established.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Now what happens if there is no sacrament and no intent at the marriage being a sacrament. It is an exchange of vows between a loving man and woman under the law and in front of the church - and is therefore a marriage. It just is not a sacramental one?
I'm not sure what you are asking here? If these people are not baptized, then vows in church will not make their marriage sacramental.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You yourself admit that not all marriages are Christian Sacramental Marriages. So why are you arguing about marriages that are not Christian Sacramental Marriages.
Because the definition I gave was for all marriages (though the "permanent" would require some qualifications, as for example my "permanent residency" in Australia does too, which is about to expire...). The "Christian Sacramental" bit adds some requirements on top of that.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You've declared Hindu marriages invalid. You've declared Muslim marriages to be invalid. You've declared Quaker marriages to be invalid. You've declared Civil marriages to be invalid.
Most of these would be valid by my definition, whereas gay marriage cannot be.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However your narrow definition is not the only definition of marriage there is or has been.
It pretty much is, actually. It certainly applies to the vast majority of all marriages contracted in the past, in the present and in all likelihood, future.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Marriage is a contract in the eyes of the law that existed long before the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. Apparently your attempts to change it are fine and ours are Humpty-Dumpty. Right.
All sacramental marriages are marriages by my definition, not all marriages according to my definition are sacramental marriages. However, no "gay marriage" can be a marriage by my definition. The RCC added some conditions to the universally accepted standard of marriage to create sacramental marriage. You try to replace this standard by something else. That is not the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Is it true that the woman in a marriage contract has the right to say no to sex at any time?
No, she does not have that right, because in the marriage contract she has stated that she will consent to sex with her husband under reasonable circumstances. The same of course applies vice versa to the man. Of course, every woman can fully determine her own sexual life. The point is however that she already has done so here. It's obviously a big and quite risky decision to make - which is the actual reason for the traditional ado about marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
He has every right to argue openly for a Roman Catholic Theocracy.
I'm not arguing for that though.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What he's arguing for is at least as radical a change as the peopele who are arguing for gay marriage are arguing for.
It's more arguing for a radical non-change.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It is not an oxymoron. It exists under that name in several countries, and has done for a number of years.
"Gay marriages" exist in the world as much as square circles. However, certain arrangements may well exist that people call "gay marriage". People do all sorts of weird and wonderless things.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
That's why some churches are making such a big deal about not being forced to bless same-sex marriage. If these marriages weren't marriages, there wouldn't be a problem.
There wouldn't be a problem with blessing as marriage what is not a marriage? Speak for yourself.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Back from RL and feeling sorry for poor wickle Ingo, all on his own.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If society in general thinks of a marriage in terms other than yours, then society in general is perfectly entitled to approve of and grant marriages.
What is this society of which you speak?
Well, this one. As already explained, the Catholic Church's views on divorcees being able to remarry are clearly at odds with the secular view expressed in law.
So whatever other things you might say against gay marriage, the idea that we can't go against the Catholic Church's views on what is or isn't a marriage doesn't hold much sway. We've already gone against their views for quite some time. If there is such a thing as a 'slippery slope' here, we're already on it.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
No, I'm saying that if two gay men vow to each other that they will have sex (with each other) that is ordered to procreation, then they are as mad as a hatter.
Which merely illustrates the fundamental problem with your view, that heterosexual couples don't vow to have sex ordered to procreation either.
At least, not at any weddings I can remember attending. There were a lot of vows about loving, honouring, obeying (sometimes ), cherishing, being faithful and things of that nature, but I'm pretty sure I would remember someone vowing 'I'm going to try my darndest to have babies with you'.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
So, there are claims being made to argue from nature as to how to order human society (an approach I don't accept) and then when it's pointed out that in natural terms something is not the case and never happened, the claim is then made that a literal sense was never intended or isn't important. How can people pretend that arguing from nature is vital and then claim it doesn't matter when their picture of nature is shown not to be the case?
I posted a link earlier on this thread here. I'm still waiting for it to be refuted in favour of showing how women are actually made from some cast off bit of bloke, or how men appear first, and women are then made for them. If people do want to argue from these things as to how human societies should order sex and marriage, shouldn't they get their picture right to start with?
It's a bit like taking Napier of Merchiston's 'A Plaine Discovery of the Whole Revelation of St. John' and saying that even though he's factually wrong in what he says about the donation of Constantine (and lots of other things) about the Catholic church that we must accept what he argues from that, about the Pope being Antichrist, and should order our societies accordingly with laws which reflect this sacred symbol and higher truth and if the Catholics complain about it, well it's just their belligerent ideology speaking, isn't it?
I've yet to see anyone try to argue that men are ordained to agricultural labour, and therefore they've no right to make choices not to be out working the fields, unless they refrain from all work and exist as mendicants. Possibly the Amish think this way, but if you're going to cite those verses to make childbearing compulsory for any married woman who hasn't got a note from the doctor, then I expect married blokes to be putting down that keyboard and getting out in the tractor as God intended. After all they're very comfortable these days. But Heaven help us if men start taking up selfish unnatural lifestyles like academic life, instead of picking turnips and mucking out byres as God designed and intended them to do. Obviously all their degrees and exam certificates are invalid, if they do not fully intend to use them for agriculture. Window boxes and bonsai don't count. Hope that's cleared things up a bit.
L.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nonsense. IngoB is arguing about definitions, not legal practicalities.
Not nonsense, Eliab summarized it well. What did you think "will practically speaking not allow prosecution" and "to the extent that one can try such cases as "marital rape" in the modern system" was intended to mean?
It means you're making a sleazy attempt to change the subject from your assertion that marital rape can't, by definition, exist to your equally wrongheaded assertion that it's not really rape if it doesn't also include a beating. Under your definition, a woman who wakes up to find herself pinned under her assailant isn't really being "raped" since she hasn't also been battered. Likewise for unconscious women in the hands of their anaesthesiologist.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The definition that got you so bent out of shape was "non-consensual sex". You seem to implicitly add a bunch of other conditions to qualify as "really rape".
The problem with that definition is that here consent can be at the same time given (through the contract) and withdrawn (through the present behaviour).
Isn't your whole argument that consent can't be withdrawn later? And if parties to a marriage can withdraw their consent at a later time, doesn't that make them horribly modern and "incapable to really dedicate your life to a particular cause"?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
By claiming that "sex is ordered to procreation" you are diminishing it into a caricature. You might as well say a knife is ordered to killing.
It's more like saying that a knife is ordered to cutting, but not for example to breaking up stone. You want a pick-axe for the latter, to use a knife for it is to abuse the knife.
So if I use my knife for slicing mushrooms I'm "using" it, but if I turn it 90° and use the flat of the blade to crush a clove of garlic I'm "abusing" it? That's one of the reasons I've found these kinds of "one true use" arguments so ridiculous. The idea that there is one (and only one) true use for anything is ridiculously anal-retentive. To apply this to the current argument, if a woman has sex with her husband she could be doing it to conceive a child, or to build emotional intimacy with her husband, or to enjoy the physical pleasure of doing so. Picking out one of those possible reasons and elevating it to the one true and only legitimate reason for having sex and classifying all the others as therefore "evil" and abusive is ridiculous.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?
The Body of Christ.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
He has every right to argue openly for a Roman Catholic Theocracy.
I'm not arguing for that though.
See, IngoB isn't arguing in favor of a Roman Catholic theocracy, he's just arguing that all laws should be set by the Roman Catholic Church. Big difference!
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
He has every right to argue it. He has every right to argue openly for a Roman Catholic Theocracy.
And I have the same right to tell him to stuff it. Why are you objecting to that? Or is it one rule for the religous, one for the rest of us?
That's not what I'm objecting to at all.
There are two things going on here:
1. The arguments over gay marriage. As going on on this thread. At that point you are perfectly at liberty to tell him to stuff it.
2. Arguments over where next for civil law concerning marriage.
ISTM several people on this thread are saying that law should be changed because the argument has been won by supporters of gay marriage. That is a circular argument. Instead the argument has been 'won' when governments decide to change the law.
I'm really surprised that you can't see the difference between a theocracy and democracy. In a democracy it is entirely fair for Ingo to put forward his definition of marriage. It would only become a RCC theocracy if we were then forced to accept his position. But just because he offers it from RC presuppositions does not automatically mean that he wants a theocracy.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Fine. He can offer it up. We can say "we aren't a Roman Catholic Theocracy over here and as such your attempt to redefine this country's legal system isn't especially relevant".
I missed this earlier.
Isn't redefined here a bit of a weasal word? Ingo is claiming that he is putting forward a definition of marriage that western society has taken as read for about 1.5 millennia.
I understand that supporters of gay marriage claim that existing legislation can be interpreted in such a way as to allow for gay marriage.
However, I think that such arguments miss the nuance of how society has traditionally understood marriage legislation.
It is rather bizarre to be told that it is the conservatives who are seeking to redefine marriage in this debate - if the current legislation is okay then why are we even having this discussion?
Surely the very fact that governments are dragging their feet on this one shows that it is the supporters of gay marriage who want to redefine marriage? What ever the legal arguments there are still a lot of people out there (a majority?) who view marriage as something between a man and a woman.
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
If there is such a thing as a 'slippery slope' here, we're already on i.t
I don't understand this. I get how (from a RC point of view) the question of divorce means we are already on a slippery slope. Why does that mean we automatically have to 'slide to the bottom'. As it were.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Hi Johnny, two responses to things in your last couple of posts (quite reasonable questions, I hasten to add).
quote:
ISTM several people on this thread are saying that law should be changed because the argument has been won by supporters of gay marriage. That is a circular argument. Instead the argument has been 'won' when governments decide to change the law.
No, that isn't quite the argument. The argument is more about the supposed reasons for NOT changing the law, and that those reasons don't hold up very well. The reason for changing the law is a fairly simple view of what would constitute equal treatment.
quote:
I don't understand this. I get how (from a RC point of view) the question of divorce means we are already on a slippery slope. Why does that mean we automatically have to 'slide to the bottom'. As it were.
It's not an argument for sliding to the bottom. It's merely pointing out that arguments along the lines of 'if you do this, you'll be starting on a slippery slope' aren't valid. I don't actually accept the notion that there IS a slippery slope, but if I accept for the sake of argument that a slope exists, it is not correct to paint gay marriage as the start of the slope or the the thin end of the wedge. The wedge is already fairly thick.
This is somewhat related to the idea that the definition of marriage has been 'taken as read' for about 1.5 millennia. Well no, there have been lots of changes to the definition of marriage over that period. All that you're saying is that this PARTICULAR change may not have happened before, which is a very, very different thing to saying that the definition of marriage is fixed and unchangeable. The definition is not fixed, and in particular (to bring the second section of this post full circle) the definition is not fixed by reference to the (Catholic) Church's definition.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Thanks Orfeo - I completely agree with you here.
I'm not sure those points are always clear when this issue is discussed though.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Few points in ANY discussion are ever entirely clear all the way through. Heck, I spend my working life dissecting and analysing concepts to death and I'm just as capable as anyone else of misspeaking and blurring ideas and not accurately conveying the kinds of distinctions I'm talking about!
Even when I have a sense that there is something unsatisfactory about a line of argument (not just other people's arguments, at times they are my own), zeroing in on the flaw and articulating it can be a difficult exercise. A lot of the time when I'm trying to explain to a client why their reasoning is flawed and why, as a result, I won't be drafting what they've asked me to draft, I have to rewrite the explanation multiple times, usually because I'm re-analysing WHILE writing and refining my instinctive 'I don't think that's gonna work' into an increasingly precise explanation of why it doesn't work.
[ 01. November 2011, 09:31: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Few points in ANY discussion are ever entirely clear all the way through. Heck, I spend my working life dissecting and analysing concepts to death and I'm just as capable as anyone else of misspeaking and blurring ideas and not accurately conveying the kinds of distinctions I'm talking about!
Even when I have a sense that there is something unsatisfactory about a line of argument (not just other people's arguments, at times they are my own), zeroing in on the flaw and articulating it can be a difficult exercise. A lot of the time when I'm trying to explain to a client why their reasoning is flawed and why, as a result, I won't be drafting what they've asked me to draft, I have to rewrite the explanation multiple times, usually because I'm re-analysing WHILE writing and refining my instinctive 'I don't think that's gonna work' into an increasingly precise explanation of why it doesn't work.
Gosh this is ever so helpfyl.
I am in awe of such clarity in the post, but also in being able to refine it into a process of thought and writing for the benefit of clients --
and for good and that of all your holy church ...
No really, I wish I could think like this even a bit.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
i ment
'our good..' - of course
i can t recall which button to press -if it is a button -- to edit post once sent - i know it's a very short time span.
So i ve had to add this instead.
Can anyone remind me ? Thanks
-must be getting olde
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM several people on this thread are saying that law should be changed because the argument has been won by supporters of gay marriage. That is a circular argument. Instead the argument has been 'won' when governments decide to change the law.
No. We're saying that in many places the law has been changed, so Ingo's claim that his is the only definition of marriage that matters is, quite frankly, risible.
quote:
I'm really surprised that you can't see the difference between a theocracy and democracy. In a democracy it is entirely fair for Ingo to put forward his definition of marriage.
But that is not what he is doing. He is putting forward what he claims is the One True Definition Of Marriage and anyone who thinks differently is, he claims, wrong.
quote:
It would only become a RCC theocracy if we were then forced to accept his position. But just because he offers it from RC presuppositions does not automatically mean that he wants a theocracy.
No. He just wants all definitions and terms to be those of the Roman Catholic Church. He wants the Roman Catholic Church to control the language we use. He is arguing that his is the only definition possible and that is why I accuse him of wanting a theocracy.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Isn't redefined here a bit of a weasal word? Ingo is claiming that he is putting forward a definition of marriage that western society has taken as read for about 1.5 millennia.
He can claim that. Marriage has not had that consistent a definition. He's also trying to redefine marriage into a religious institution with exclusive rights to the definition from one single religion.
quote:
It is rather bizarre to be told that it is the conservatives who are seeking to redefine marriage in this debate - if the current legislation is okay then why are we even having this discussion?
Both sides want to redefine marriage. Progressives want to redefine the legal understanding of what marriage will be in the future. Reactionaries want to redefine what marriage used to be to fit some sort of golden time. And reactionaries like IngoB are seeking to deny that they are redefining it.
I'd not object if IngoB was trying to say "this is how marriage should be". But he's not. He's trying to say that there has always been one clear definition.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
Even in the RCC, things are not totally clear cut, not necessarily quite what they seem on the surface :
www.sohomasses.com;
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
That link i can gave above seems not to work.
trying again ! :--
http://www.sohomasses.com/
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?
The Body of Christ.what is not a marriage? Speak for yourself.
One denomination in the Body of Christ - unless you think that the Orthodox, Anglicans and protestant churches are not part of Christ's body.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
No. Gays cannot vow this, for reasons that have nothing to do with "authority". For example, a gay couple would consist of a man and a man, right? But what did I say they cannot vow? Get it? Get it? No? Oh... well...
Except that marriage is defined by the legal institutions of the state it is in. Whatever is written by the Roman Catholic Church is relevant in so far as it lines up with the laws of the state.
That you choose to try to impose the Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage on everyone else shows why you are confused.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?
The Body of Christ.
Nomnomnom.
Seriously, Render Unto Caesar. That includes the ability to make laws.
quote:
No, I'm saying that if two gay men vow to each other that they will have sex (with each other) that is ordered to procreation, then they are as mad as a hatter.
As far as I know two gay men can not get married for a Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage. No one disputes this. However that does not excuse your bait and switch of claiming that Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage is the be all and end all of marriage.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
By claiming that "sex is ordered to procreation" you are diminishing it into a caricature. You might as well say a knife is ordered to killing.
It's more like saying that a knife is ordered to cutting, but not for example to breaking up stone. You want a pick-axe for the latter, to use a knife for it is to abuse the knife.
Let's see. A knife will not break stone under normal circumstances. So for your analogy to hold, gay sex and non-procreative sex would have to be impossible.
quote:
The point was not that this definition is right, but rather that gays cannot possibly vow this (while of a sane mind).
Fine. Gay people can not have a Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage. They can have a legal, civil, and religious marriage. It just isn't a Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage. It is, however, a marriage. Like any other marriage that is not a Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage.
quote:
This is simply false, and has been dealt with already above. The sexual act has to be ordered to procreation, but it does not have to result in offspring.
If sex after a hysterectomy is "ordered to procreation" then all "ordered to procreation" means is that you must insert tab A into slot B.
Out of curiosity, are straight couples allowed anal sex?
quote:
Uhh, that and completely dominating the scene for about 1.5 millennia
Yes. And we're still recovering from the damage you did in that time.
quote:
(or if you count in polygamy, for time immemorial). Yes. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to continue language use that is so incredibly well established.
Language that is incredibly well established. Like a marriage being a civil arragement that may take place in a church (as has legally been the case in Britain for a looong time)? The sacraments being irrelevant.
quote:
Because the definition I gave was for all marriages
Strictly false. The definition you gave was for all marriages recognised by IngoB. A legal marriage is a marriage whether or not you choose to recognise it.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However your narrow definition is not the only definition of marriage there is or has been.
It pretty much is, actually. It certainly applies to the vast majority of all marriages contracted in the past, in the present and in all likelihood, future.
"The vast majority"? So who the hell cares about the minority? Is that it?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Is it true that the woman in a marriage contract has the right to say no to sex at any time?
No, she does not have that right,
So there is no such thing as marital rape. Right.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
It is not an oxymoron. It exists under that name in several countries, and has done for a number of years.
"Gay marriages" exist in the world as much as square circles. However, certain arrangements may well exist that people call "gay marriage". People do all sorts of weird and wonderless things.
The "certain arrangement" that exists in Canada is not in fact called "gay marriage". It is known to the law as "marriage" and is so, just so and exactly as marriage between persons of different sexes.
It's not the people. (Well it is, but only as a consquence of) the fact that the definition of marriage law of Canada has been specifically declared by the SUpreme Court, ratified by Parliament, that "marriage" takes place between two persons, in whatever combination of sexes the two persons choose.
You are refusing to admit that what you don't like does in fact exist, when it clearly does, in several countries. Or perhaps you think they don't really exist either. Perhaps Canada only exists for you in a world of pure types where, it "really" is and only is what you think it ought to be.
John
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So whatever other things you might say against gay marriage, the idea that we can't go against the Catholic Church's views on what is or isn't a marriage doesn't hold much sway. We've already gone against their views for quite some time. If there is such a thing as a 'slippery slope' here, we're already on it.
Indeed.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There were a lot of vows about loving, honouring, obeying (sometimes [Biased] ), cherishing, being faithful and things of that nature, but I'm pretty sure I would remember someone vowing 'I'm going to try my darndest to have babies with you'.
That's an interesting point. The modern age has lost the plot to such a degree that laying out the nitty-gritty "mechanics" of marriage is now perhaps necessary. The liturgical poetry of a gentler and doctrinally sound age doesn't really cut it anymore. It's a kind of "lex orendi, lex credendi" (as we pray so we believe), where the reluctance to talk about sexual detail has led people to forget its importance. The doctrinal documents however are sufficiently clear. Furthermore, the RC rite does contain at least a hint of this already, see here, the third question being asked of the couple.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
So, there are claims being made to argue from nature as to how to order human society (an approach I don't accept) and then when it's pointed out that in natural terms something is not the case and never happened, the claim is then made that a literal sense was never intended or isn't important.
Exegesis and natural law morality are two rather different things. Consequently, their rules and methods are also different.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I've yet to see anyone try to argue that men are ordained to agricultural labour, and therefore they've no right to make choices not to be out working the fields, unless they refrain from all work and exist as mendicants.
Nobody on this thread has used literalistic exegesis, so you are attacking straw-men.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It means you're making a sleazy attempt to change the subject from your assertion that marital rape can't, by definition, exist to your equally wrongheaded assertion that it's not really rape if it doesn't also include a beating. Under your definition, a woman who wakes up to find herself pinned under her assailant isn't really being "raped" since she hasn't also been battered. Likewise for unconscious women in the hands of their anaesthesiologist.
Sleazy? That's a new one. You are really quite the cute Rumpelstilzchen...
Now, the question of consent in the old system is a difficult one, as I was actually trying to explain. But as I've stated clearly above: it may well be that there is no "marital rape" there, but this does not mean that the action so-called nowadays is less criminal. I've never asserted that a rape requires "beating", but simply stated the fairly obvious fact that without attendant physical trauma prosecuting rape (or "sexual assault") generally is difficult. Your conclusions from "my definition" are hence simply the (rather telling) imaginations of your own mind.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't your whole argument that consent can't be withdrawn later?
People are not robots. The marriage contract establishes what ought to happen, and this "ought" indeed is irrevocable. However, what actually does happen may well be different. Unlike robots, humans can choose to ignore the rules, even if they established these rules themselves. I cannot predict whether a husband or wife will agree to sex when asked to. I merely can say that if they do not and if there are no good extrinsic reasons for this refusal, then they are in the wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So if I use my knife for slicing mushrooms I'm "using" it, but if I turn it 90° and use the flat of the blade to crush a clove of garlic I'm "abusing" it? That's one of the reasons I've found these kinds of "one true use" arguments so ridiculous. The idea that there is one (and only one) true use for anything is ridiculously anal-retentive.
That is not the idea though. Of course people have always been aware that objects can have more than one use. If you use the flat of the blade to crush pebbles, you are still abusing the knife. That said, the problem with my example is that the purpose of tools is largely derived from the tool-maker/user. Natural moral law is about things not likewise under our control, so maybe my analogy was indeed bad.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To apply this to the current argument, if a woman has sex with her husband she could be doing it to conceive a child, or to build emotional intimacy with her husband, or to enjoy the physical pleasure of doing so. Picking out one of those possible reasons and elevating it to the one true and only legitimate reason for having sex and classifying all the others as therefore "evil" and abusive is ridiculous.
Some things have more than one purpose. As it happens, that includes the penis, which is used for sex and peeing, respectively. While this implies some overlap in practice, it is rather obvious that for example problems with bladder control can be discussed without reference to sex. Furthermore, there often is one aspect that is primary in some sense. For the penis this is quite clearly (a specific kind of) sex. Castrates demonstrate that one can pee without a penis but not have vaginal intercourse. It is hence entirely licit to consider the purposes of marriage in separation, and to consider procreation as primary.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
See, IngoB isn't arguing in favor of a Roman Catholic theocracy, he's just arguing that all laws should be set by the Roman Catholic Church. Big difference!
I'm not arguing that all laws should be set by the RCC. The RCC enjoys Divine authority on faith and morals, though not in general infallibly so. Hence it would be prudent for governments to listen to her advice on faith and morals, just like the government consults all sorts of other experts on all sorts of other matters. And indeed, decisions involving faith and morals are only a part of the remit of governments.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
This is somewhat related to the idea that the definition of marriage has been 'taken as read' for about 1.5 millennia. Well no, there have been lots of changes to the definition of marriage over that period.
This is simply false. Over the course of 1.5 millennia even the Christian sacramental definition of marriage (which is considerably more narrow) has held essentially unchanged. The definition I've given (at least if one is not too anal about how permanent "permanent" has to be...) includes pretty much everything else that has been called "marriage" prior to modernity. Of course, many of the "accidents" of marriage are variable, like for example what happens to the property owned by the couple prior to marriage. But the "essence" of marriage is incredibly static.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No. We're saying that in many places the law has been changed, so Ingo's claim that his is the only definition of marriage that matters is, quite frankly, risible.
2 millennia have passed since Christ. I said that the essence of marriage has not changed over at least 1.5 millennia. Do the math.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But that is not what he is doing. He is putting forward what he claims is the One True Definition Of Marriage and anyone who thinks differently is, he claims, wrong.
If I did not think that it was the one true definition, I would not put it forward. Do you assume that democracy only works if people propose things that they are unsure about? The vaguer, the better?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
He is arguing that his is the only definition possible and that is why I accuse him of wanting a theocracy.
This is like saying that because I insist that the rules of addition and subtraction as defined by mathematicians apply to the state budget, I want to establish a mathocracy. Vive la Revolution! 2+2=5!
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
He's also trying to redefine marriage into a religious institution with exclusive rights to the definition from one single religion.
Since I wish that all people become Catholic, and since Catholics contracting marriage validly establish a sacramental marriage automatically, that's true in a way... It's not however true in the sense that I hope the state will outlaw all marriages but Catholic ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'd not object if IngoB was trying to say "this is how marriage should be". But he's not. He's trying to say that there has always been one clear definition.
I did not say "always", certainly not as far as sacramental marriages go. But yeah, the historical facts are really very, very firmly on my side there. So is natural moral law, but unfortunately that is much harder to establish.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Except that marriage is defined by the legal institutions of the state it is in.
It isn't. The state can provide a legal framework for marriage, and indeed it can establish legal frameworks that contain marriage and other things (which is what is happening in the case of "gay marriage"). But when all is said and done, people will still marry. Just like they will always dance. It's a human thing to do, something deeper than any particular state or culture.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
That you choose to try to impose the Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage on everyone else shows why you are confused.
Well, I would certainly recommend it heartily to anyone who has no other calling. What I'm actually insisting on is that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However that does not excuse your bait and switch of claiming that Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage is the be all and end all of marriage.
Sorry, this does not parse. Is RCSM supposed to be the bait or the switch? An where am I supposed to have baited and switched (and from/to what?)?
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Let's see. A knife will not break stone under normal circumstances. So for your analogy to hold, gay sex and non-procreative sex would have to be impossible.
Rather, gay sex ordered to procreation would have to be impossible. Which it is.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Gay people can not have a Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage. They can have a legal, civil, and religious marriage. It just isn't a Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage. It is, however, a marriage. Like any other marriage that is not a Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage.
Nope. Gay people can have a steady relationship which includes sex, but not a marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Out of curiosity, are straight couples allowed anal sex?
In principle, no. In practice, I guess it would be tolerable as foreplay to vaginal sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
A legal marriage is a marriage whether or not you choose to recognise it.
Some people are impressed by Indiana Pi Bills, some are not.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So there is no such thing as marital rape. Right.
This has been discussed extensively above.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
So, there are claims being made to argue from nature as to how to order human society (an approach I don't accept) and then when it's pointed out that in natural terms something is not the case and never happened, the claim is then made that a literal sense was never intended or isn't important.
Exegesis and natural law morality are two rather different things. Consequently, their rules and methods are also different.
Come on Ingo, if you're going to claim stuff is 'natural' then kindly show what connection to nature it has. If 'natural law' is based on whacky stories about nature and human origins then why should anyone pay any more attention to it than to Scientology with its more colourful but equally false account of human origins?
If you want to argue that it's a symbol and a metaphor and a higher truth and it doesn't matter if none of it ever happened, then kindly show why people should embrace your pet oppressive symbol for how their world should be. If someone was to to say to you, 'Oh no we don't mean the Pope is literally Antichrist, or some beast out of Revelation, oh goodness me, nobody is arguing that! We understand it as a spiritual truth!' would you be fine with that as a basis for legal discrimination against Catholics? If not, then why should your church's pet symbolic interpretation of the Bible be sufficient basis for laws which hurt others?
It seems to me you want to eat your cake and have it - you keep pointing to 'nature' but when nature is nothing like what the Bible says, all of a sudden it's 'nobody's using literalistic exegesis'
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I've yet to see anyone try to argue that men are ordained to agricultural labour, and therefore they've no right to make choices not to be out working the fields, unless they refrain from all work and exist as mendicants.
Nobody on this thread has used literalistic exegesis, so you are attacking straw-men.
I'm getting fed up of this. You cited Genesis 3.16 to me to justify your insistence that married women who didn't intend on procreation, you know literally, as in popping out actual babies with all the risks of childbirth were invalidating their marriages, but suddenly when it comes to men we're in 'Blessed are the cheesemakers' territory
"Well, obviously it's not meant to be taken literally; it refers to any manufacturers of dairy products."
So come on, spell it out. Precisely what connection to nature does what you call 'natural' have? And if you're claiming that having no factual content doesn't matter, then why should anyone take seriously a symbolic interpretation which has a huge history of causing institutional discrimination against them as a group and which is based on pejorative stories about them which never happened?
Thanks,
Louise
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It means you're making a sleazy attempt to change the subject from your assertion that marital rape can't, by definition, exist to your equally wrongheaded assertion that it's not really rape if it doesn't also include a beating. Under your definition, a woman who wakes up to find herself pinned under her assailant isn't really being "raped" since she hasn't also been battered. Likewise for unconscious women in the hands of their anaesthesiologist.
Sleazy? That's a new one. You are really quite the cute Rumpelstilzchen...
Now, the question of consent in the old system is a difficult one, as I was actually trying to explain. But as I've stated clearly above: it may well be that there is no "marital rape" there, but this does not mean that the action so-called nowadays is less criminal. I've never asserted that a rape requires "beating", but simply stated the fairly obvious fact that without attendant physical trauma prosecuting rape (or "sexual assault") generally is difficult. Your conclusions from "my definition" are hence simply the (rather telling) imaginations of your own mind.
Not imagination, observation. It seemed the most reasonable conclusion to reach given that every metaphor, explanation, and analogy you've offered has involved a beating, plus the fact that you explicitly rejected a similar analogy because it didn't involve a beating.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't your whole argument that consent can't be withdrawn later?
People are not robots. The marriage contract establishes what ought to happen, and this "ought" indeed is irrevocable. However, what actually does happen may well be different. Unlike robots, humans can choose to ignore the rules, even if they established these rules themselves. I cannot predict whether a husband or wife will agree to sex when asked to. I merely can say that if they do not and if there are no good extrinsic reasons for this refusal, then they are in the wrong.
Wait, wasn't the whole purpose of this rant that such agreement can indeed be predicted years in advance? Not just that, but that having an "escape clause" of being able to change your mind later undermines a couple's commitment to each other. So if a spouse can refuse sex, how is this different than the modern ideas about consent you find so horrifying?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Some things have more than one purpose. As it happens, that includes the penis, which is used for sex and peeing, respectively. While this implies some overlap in practice, it is rather obvious that for example problems with bladder control can be discussed without reference to sex. Furthermore, there often is one aspect that is primary in some sense. For the penis this is quite clearly (a specific kind of) sex.
I'm not sure why it's "clear" that the primary purpose of the penis is "a specific kind of sex". If we go by most common mode of use, or even the use most closely related to immediate survival, it seems clear that urination is the penis' primary function. Heck, I'm not even sure why you claim it's "clear" why certain sex acts are a "primary function" while others are . . . secondary(?) I'm guessing that the fact the typical penis is more or less exactly the right length to hit the average prostate doesn't carry much weight in your argumentation.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Castrates demonstrate that one can pee without a penis but not have vaginal intercourse.
I would have thought the more obvious example was that women clearly demonstrate that one can pee without a penis, but to each his own I guess. Of course, women can still have vaginal intercourse, so I suppose that's why you ignore the obvious example.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
See, IngoB isn't arguing in favor of a Roman Catholic theocracy, he's just arguing that all laws should be set by the Roman Catholic Church. Big difference!
I'm not arguing that all laws should be set by the RCC.
Ahem.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Who does the RCC think she is that she can lay down the law for all human beings, everywhere?
The Body of Christ.
------------
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC enjoys Divine authority on faith and morals, though not in general infallibly so. Hence it would be prudent for governments to listen to her advice on faith and morals, just like the government consults all sorts of other experts on all sorts of other matters. And indeed, decisions involving faith and morals are only a part of the remit of governments.
Because who's more expert on marriage than a bunch of (ostensible) celibates?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Except that marriage is defined by the legal institutions of the state it is in.
It isn't. The state can provide a legal framework for marriage, and indeed it can establish legal frameworks that contain marriage and other things (which is what is happening in the case of "gay marriage"). But when all is said and done, people will still marry. Just like they will always dance. It's a human thing to do, something deeper than any particular state or culture.
Ah. This is where your argument seriously falls down. Well actually, rather than falling down a lot of it just evaporates.
Because gay people will 'marry' each other when all is said and done, whether it fits into your understanding of the word 'marriage' or not. The argument is entirely about LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay marriage, in the same way that your lovely Catholic Sacramental Marriages are legally recognised.
Laws define things all the time. I should know, I write the silly things. The Marriage Act in my own country specifically defines what a marriage is... only it didn't specifically mention 'a man and a woman' until 2004, when people got frightened that courts might start reading the actual words of the Act or people from weird countries like Canada and the Netherlands might move to Australia with their same-sex spouses.
If 'a man and a woman' can be inserted into a definition, it can just as easily be taken out again. Whatever the merits are of saying the words were implied into the legislation pre-2004, any further move to take the words out again will be a clear signal that, as far as the law is concerned, gender is irrelevant.
But as far as people going through the process of pledging undying love to each other and making commitments, that's going to happen regardless of what the law says. The existence of same-sex attraction amongst human beings is a heck of a lot deeper than any particular state or culture.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not imagination, observation. It seemed the most reasonable conclusion to reach given that every metaphor, explanation, and analogy you've offered has involved a beating, plus the fact that you explicitly rejected a similar analogy because it didn't involve a beating.
I didn't reject your analogy, I said it was no better. Furthermore, when I think of rape, I think of violence. Not necessarily beating, but for example holding down, threatening with a knife, etc. It is true that this is not necessary for rape to occur, but it sure is "normal": A woman retains control over her body, and in general a rapist needs to make sure that she will not try to escape or fight back. I do not think that these thoughts are particularly "sleazy" of me. I bet that most people would describe a violent scene if asked to imagine a rape.
Now, why is your analogy less good than mine? Because it asks us to believe that the person who has first promised the use of the care, and then refuses it, will hand out the keys to the garage / car in spite of this refusal. This is unusual. One would expect that some kind of struggle is involved in actually getting access to the car in this case. This is not necessary, but it sure is "normal". We would then for example expect that an "opportunity" was used (say the keys were left in the car parked on the road). Etc. As just explained, all this translates back to rape by analogy.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So if a spouse can refuse sex, how is this different than the modern ideas about consent you find so horrifying?
It's hard to see why you find this difficult. Assuming that say the wife's request for sex is reasonable given the circumstances, but the husband refuses nevertheless, you would say that it is his good right to do so whereas I would say that he is wronging his wife.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure why it's "clear" that the primary purpose of the penis is "a specific kind of sex".
Because you wouldn't have a penis if this wasn't a good way to get sperm further up a woman's vagina, drastically increasing the chance of conception.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If we go by most common mode of use, or even the use most closely related to immediate survival, it seems clear that urination is the penis' primary function.
Primary in the sense of frequency, perhaps. But a penis is not needed even now for a man to pee (which was my point about castrates). Whereas it is needed for the sort of sex humans have to procreate. Hence that is its primary purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I would have thought the more obvious example was that women clearly demonstrate that one can pee without a penis, but to each his own I guess. Of course, women can still have vaginal intercourse, so I suppose that's why you ignore the obvious example.
Women also have specific adaptations for vaginal sex, they are just less visible. I didn't point to women simply because castrates show that urinating does not require a penis even in men.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because who's more expert on marriage than a bunch of (ostensible) celibates?
Concerning the morals involved: nobody. It is of course possible to have expert knowledge and insight about a matter without being that matter.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
The wonderful thing is same sex couples are being wed in more and more countries around the world.
With more to follow ere long -
Scotland ? England ? etc
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
Before I respond to some more comments, here's a more general question for those in favour of the "modern" definition of marriage. Why bother? Take your average cohabiting modern couple, of what genders is irrelevant of course, that is happily fornicating or sodomizing or otherwise carrying on in bed. Precisely why should they get married in your opinion? What is the point? Is there still some big fat legal difference between "married people" (gender-blind) and "people living together"? And if so, should there be one? What is the big deal here, really?
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
The "certain arrangement" that exists in Canada is not in fact called "gay marriage". It is known to the law as "marriage" and is so, just so and exactly as marriage between persons of different sexes.
Humpty Dumpty in action. I do not doubt that lawyers in Canada will now mouth the word "marriage" and mean both actual marriages and "gay marriages". And perhaps, if this nonsense carries on long enough, one day marriage will indeed mean "a steady relationship generally involving some kind of sex". That would be regrettable, but all it means is that the distinction that exists in reality then will have to be captured differently in words.
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
You are refusing to admit that what you don't like does in fact exist, when it clearly does, in several countries.
I'm merely insisting that the re-definition involved in making "gay marriages" something else than an oxymoron is idiotic: it disconnects us from the past and makes it harder to express realities. This really is a pure exercise in doublespeak within the context of a moral battle.
If this becomes so commonplace as to be unavoidable in communication, I will simply speak of the traditional concept as "real marriage". We can all play language games...
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because gay people will 'marry' each other when all is said and done, whether it fits into your understanding of the word 'marriage' or not. The argument is entirely about LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay marriage, in the same way that your lovely Catholic Sacramental Marriages are legally recognised.
That may well be what the argument is about for you, but it certainly is not so for me. The law is a servant of morals, not vice versa.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If 'a man and a woman' can be inserted into a definition, it can just as easily be taken out again. Whatever the merits are of saying the words were implied into the legislation pre-2004, any further move to take the words out again will be a clear signal that, as far as the law is concerned, gender is irrelevant.
I'm not sure why you have the impression that I somehow doubt that. This is trivially true, of course. I'm interested in law here only insofar as what laws we ought to have, i.e., only as an expression of morality toward the common good.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The existence of same-sex attraction amongst human beings is a heck of a lot deeper than any particular state or culture.
Indeed, that goes right back to the original sin.
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Before I respond to some more comments, here's a more general question for those in favour of the "modern" definition of marriage. Why bother? Take your average cohabiting modern couple, of what genders is irrelevant of course, that is happily fornicating or sodomizing or otherwise carrying on in bed. Precisely why should they get married in your opinion? What is the point? Is there still some big fat legal difference between "married people" (gender-blind) and "people living together"? And if so, should there be one? What is the big deal here, really?
Because marriage isn't only about sex - it's a public declaration of commitment. Then there's also the financial and legal benefits of marriage - i.e. tax benefits, rights of inheritance, right to make legal decisions for an incapacitated spouse, etc. etc. etc.
I have to say, that from a government/legal standpoint, what the RCC or any church believes is irrelevant. Churches can decide who they will or won't marry, but they shouldn't assume they have the right to make everyone else follow suit.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Exegesis and natural law morality are two rather different things. Consequently, their rules and methods are also different.
Indeed. But I've yet to see any meaning to the Roman Catholic definition of natural law other than "We'd really like an excuse to preach this but can't find one. So we'll call it natural law."
quote:
That is not the idea though. Of course people have always been aware that objects can have more than one use.
However you seek to diminish them by restricting them to one function.
quote:
That said, the problem with my example is that the purpose of tools is largely derived from the tool-maker/user.
Utter crap. The purpose of tools is to be as useful to the tool-user as possible and to extend the tool user's ability. A knife is the wrong tool for cutting rocks because it dulls the knife blade and doesn't do much to the rock. Not because the tool maker arbitrarily says so. Once the tool maker has made the tool, his part with that tool is done. And a genuinely good tool maker will look at not just what he intended, but what is actually done with the tool to work out how to improve the next one.
quote:
Some things have more than one purpose. As it happens, that includes the penis, which is used for sex and peeing, respectively. While this implies some overlap in practice, it is rather obvious that for example problems with bladder control can be discussed without reference to sex. Furthermore, there often is one aspect that is primary in some sense. For the penis this is quite clearly (a specific kind of) sex. Castrates demonstrate that one can pee without a penis but not have vaginal intercourse. It is hence entirely licit to consider the purposes of marriage in separation, and to consider procreation as primary.
Did you really think that you could slip from sex to procreation that easily without anyone calling you out?
Some things have more than one purpose. As it happens, that includes the orgasm, which is used for procreation and pleasure, respectively. While this implies some overlap in practice, it is rather obvious that for example problems with sterility can be discussed without reference to pleasure. Furthermore, there often is one aspect that is primary in some sense. For the penis this is quite clearly pleasure. Hand jobs demonstrate that one can receive pleasure without procreation but not have vaginal intercourse. It is hence entirely licit to consider the purposes of sex in separation, and to consider pleasure as primary.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
See, I'm not arguing that all laws should be set by the RCC. The RCC enjoys Divine authority on faith and morals,
A statement I take about as seriously as I do about claims about being a Peoples' Democratic Republic.
quote:
though not in general infallibly so. Hence it would be prudent for governments to listen to her advice on faith and morals, just like the government consults all sorts of other experts on all sorts of other matters.
The Roman Catholic Church's claim to expertise is self-bestowed. I would hope that governments would take her as seriously as they do other self-proclaimed experts. I would further hope that in matters of sex they would take the Roman Catholic church as seriously as they would any other group of "experts" on matters which they claim to have no first hand experience of.
Regrettably, the government does often take inappropriate experts seriously.
quote:
This is simply false. Over the course of 1.5 millennia even the Christian sacramental definition of marriage (which is considerably more narrow) has held essentially unchanged.
Balderdash!
Your definition of marriage goes back to The Council of Trent that re-wrote the book by amongst other things claiming Common Law Marriages to be invalid.
quote:
If I did not think that it was the one true definition, I would not put it forward. Do you assume that democracy only works if people propose things that they are unsure about? The vaguer, the better?
No. Do you think Democracy works by ignoring when people are spouting harmful crap rather than trying to correct them on it?
For that matter, do you believe in Democracy?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
[qb]He is arguing that his is the only definition possible and that is why I accuse him of wanting a theocracy.
This is like saying that because I insist that the rules of addition and subtraction as defined by mathematicians apply to the state budget, I want to establish a mathocracy. Vive la Revolution! 2+2=5!
I didn't know you were ready to join the American Tea Party who make very similar claims by making the false equivalence that the government should be run like a household budget.
quote:
So is natural moral law, but unfortunately that is much harder to establish.
Mostly because "natural moral law" is so far as I can tell the erudite Catholic's way of saying "because I say so".
quote:
Sorry, this does not parse. Is RCSM supposed to be the bait or the switch? An where am I supposed to have baited and switched (and from/to what?)?
You've switched from historical marriage to Roman Catholic Sacramental Marriage.
quote:
Rather, gay sex ordered to procreation would have to be impossible. Which it is.
Except that sex need not be procreative. The idea that sex needs to be "ordered to procreation" is the Roman Catholic Church trying to change the definition of sex at least as much as gay marriage would change the definition of marriage.
quote:
Nope. Gay people can have a steady relationship which includes sex, but not a marriage.
If and only if we let you control the dictionaries. And we don't.
quote:
Some people are impressed by Indiana Pi Bills, some are not.
Given that you keep offering them under the name "natural law", I can guess which you are.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I didn't reject your analogy, I said it was no better. Furthermore, when I think of rape, I think of violence. Not necessarily beating, but for example holding down, threatening with a knife, etc. It is true that this is not necessary for rape to occur, but it sure is "normal":
And this I'm afraid just shows your ignorance. The vast majority of rapes are by people known to the victim (and generally trusted by - we're talking family and friends not stalkers) rather than by some random violent assailant. Fighting isn't necessarily an option - physical upper body strength is different enough between men and women that escalating to a genuine fight will make things much, much worse in many cases. And that's even without the problem of attacking someone you trusted.
quote:
I bet that most people would describe a violent scene if asked to imagine a rape.
And I bet most people would describe a battle if asked to imagine being in the army. Or being in an operating theatre if asked to imagine being a doctor. Which means it's cinematic rather than what happens most of the time.
Your contention shows that your level of accuracy is around that of Holywood.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Because who's more expert on marriage than a bunch of (ostensible) celibates?
Concerning the morals involved: nobody. It is of course possible to have expert knowledge and insight about a matter without being that matter.
Oh, it is possible to have expert knowledge and insight. Normally done by talking to people with experience and making them your peers rather than joining with and living with an organisation that refuses to take part in the whole matter.
Frankly I think the average married person has better insight than the Pope. Especially on the subject of issues they are carefully taught are wrong, whatever the evidence on the ground says. (I've quoted the relevant bit of the catechism that says that whatever the facts say your views can't change).
quote:
That may well be what the argument is about for you, but it certainly is not so for me. The law is a servant of morals, not vice versa.
Perhaps. The moral argument however is not in your favour. The only argument you have with a leg to stand on is the Traditional one.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Before I respond to some more comments, here's a more general question for those in favour of the "modern" definition of marriage. Why bother? Take your average cohabiting modern couple, of what genders is irrelevant of course, that is happily fornicating or sodomizing or otherwise carrying on in bed. Precisely why should they get married in your opinion? What is the point? Is there still some big fat legal difference between "married people" (gender-blind) and "people living together"?
Yes! Assuredly and emphatically yes. Next of kin being a huge cascading one.
quote:
And if so, should there be one? What is the big deal here, really?
You mean is there any difference between a ceremonial marriage and a common law marriage? Depends. Do you live somewhere that has common law marriages?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Both sides want to redefine marriage. Progressives want to redefine the legal understanding of what marriage will be in the future. Reactionaries want to redefine what marriage used to be to fit some sort of golden time. And reactionaries like IngoB are seeking to deny that they are redefining it.
Do you disagree with Orfeo's recent posts then?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Both sides want to redefine marriage. Progressives want to redefine the legal understanding of what marriage will be in the future. Reactionaries want to redefine what marriage used to be to fit some sort of golden time. And reactionaries like IngoB are seeking to deny that they are redefining it.
Do you disagree with Orfeo's recent posts then?
Let's look at his most recent post:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Because gay people will 'marry' each other when all is said and done, whether it fits into your understanding of the word 'marriage' or not. The argument is entirely about LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay marriage, in the same way that your lovely Catholic Sacramental Marriages are legally recognised.
Laws define things all the time. I should know, I write the silly things. The Marriage Act in my own country specifically defines what a marriage is... only it didn't specifically mention 'a man and a woman' until 2004, when people got frightened that courts might start reading the actual words of the Act or people from weird countries like Canada and the Netherlands might move to Australia with their same-sex spouses.
If 'a man and a woman' can be inserted into a definition, it can just as easily be taken out again. Whatever the merits are of saying the words were implied into the legislation pre-2004, any further move to take the words out again will be a clear signal that, as far as the law is concerned, gender is irrelevant.
But as far as people going through the process of pledging undying love to each other and making commitments, that's going to happen regardless of what the law says. The existence of same-sex attraction amongst human beings is a heck of a lot deeper than any particular state or culture.
What does it contain?
An illustration that the law changes over time and that Reactionaries have been changing the law recently. A claim that it's the legal definition that is the one we are fighting over. Comments about same sex attraction being entirely natural.
No, I can't see any point where I disagree with him. What were you thinking of?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Come on Ingo, if you're going to claim stuff is 'natural' then kindly show what connection to nature it has. If 'natural law' is based on whacky stories about nature and human origins then why should anyone pay any more attention to it than to Scientology with its more colourful but equally false account of human origins?
RC moral teaching is based on both revelation (which includes Genesis) and natural moral law. That both are used does not make them the same. Natural moral law is based on analysing the essential purpose of things, it's a philosophical approach and as such a potential source of truth for anyone. Revelation is the word of God and as such primarily a source of truth for believers.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
It seems to me you want to eat your cake and have it - you keep pointing to 'nature' but when nature is nothing like what the Bible says, all of a sudden it's 'nobody's using literalistic exegesis'.
Try to understand that we are simply talking about two different things here. In principle, even if the Christian revelation was utterly wrong, natural moral law could be perfectly right. And vice versa. Of course, in fact they often come to the same conclusion about something, and then concerning that one cannot be right if the other is wrong. But they are in principle independent methodologically and hence their application follows different rules.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You cited Genesis 3.16 to me to justify your insistence that married women who didn't intend on procreation, you know literally, as in popping out actual babies with all the risks of childbirth were invalidating their marriages, but suddenly when it comes to men we're in 'Blessed are the cheesemakers' territory
I did not cite Genesis 3:16 at you, but rather Genesis 3:16-18. And the context was that you tried to claim that men are unfairly trying to impose pain and danger on women without being affected themselves. Genesis 3:16-18 shows that firstly this was not imposed by men but rather by God, and secondly that men got their just share of punishment.
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
So come on, spell it out. Precisely what connection to nature does what you call 'natural' have?
If you mean "natural moral law", it is a way of getting a moral "ought" form the way nature "is", by analysing the purpose things appear to have in nature. This is different from analysing scripture, based on the assumption that a Divinely inspired author used this as means to reveal God's truths to us.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Because marriage isn't only about sex - it's a public declaration of commitment.
Firstly, precisely what does a modern marriage commit people to? Secondly, does such commitment not exist in ordinary cohabiting couples? Thirdly, why would a public declaration have to involve the state?
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Then there's also the financial and legal benefits of marriage - i.e. tax benefits, rights of inheritance, right to make legal decisions for an incapacitated spouse, etc. etc. etc.
To what extent can such things not be claimed by a cohabiting partner in your legislation? And if they can't, then is this just? If the fight about "marriage" is merely to gain access to certain benefits, then why bother with re-defining marriage? Why not simply fight for getting the laws regulating such benefits adjusted?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
An illustration that the law changes over time and that Reactionaries have been changing the law recently. A claim that it's the legal definition that is the one we are fighting over. Comments about same sex attraction being entirely natural.
No, I can't see any point where I disagree with him. What were you thinking of?
I was thinking of this...
quote:
Originally posted by Orfeo:
This is somewhat related to the idea that the definition of marriage has been 'taken as read' for about 1.5 millennia. Well no, there have been lots of changes to the definition of marriage over that period. All that you're saying is that this PARTICULAR change may not have happened before, which is a very, very different thing to saying that the definition of marriage is fixed and unchangeable. The definition is not fixed, and in particular (to bring the second section of this post full circle) the definition is not fixed by reference to the (Catholic) Church's definition.
It is disingenuous to claim that conservatives are seeking to redefine marriage on this PARTICULAR issue. (To borrow Orfeo's panache for capitals.)
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Then there's also the financial and legal benefits of marriage - i.e. tax benefits, rights of inheritance, right to make legal decisions for an incapacitated spouse, etc. etc. etc.
To what extent can such things not be claimed by a cohabiting partner in your legislation? And if they can't, then is this just? If the fight about "marriage" is merely to gain access to certain benefits, then why bother with re-defining marriage? Why not simply fight for getting the laws regulating such benefits adjusted?
First, note that I didn't say it was all about gaining benefits. The primary reason is to have the same public recognition of that relationship on all levels that heterosexual couples who choose to marry have. Right now that commitment is belittled at almost every turn - especially in language used by many Christians. As to the legalities I mentioned, on this side of the pond most of what I specified would take a lot of legal paperwork and cost a lot of money. Sadly, homophobic relatives have been able to get courts to rule in their favor invalidating said legal paperwork. Unfortunately in some instances the courts have recognized biological relationships over gay relationships. Co-habitating heterosexuals have more legal rights at times than gay couples and unless gay marriage is legalized on a Federal level here there won't be the tax benefits. I fail to see why gay couples should be denied full legal spousal rights or have to go to a greater expense and hassle in obtaining equivalent rights than their heterosexual counterparts who only need a marriage license and a date with the municipal clerk to have them as well as tax benefits just because the RCC fails to approve. Let the Church marry who it wants to and turn away those it doesn't. That doesn't mean the state has to follow the church's decisions.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It is disingenuous to claim that conservatives are seeking to redefine marriage on this PARTICULAR issue. (To borrow Orfeo's panache for capitals.)
On the contrary. Liberals are attempting to redefine an accident of marriage (allowing people who previously would not have been able to be married to become married). Reactionaries are trying to redefine the essence of marriage (from a state-mandated legal relationship sometimes with religious ceremonial sanction that's mutable and changes over time to something that only they have control over and that Must Not Be Changed).
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It is disingenuous to claim that conservatives are seeking to redefine marriage on this PARTICULAR issue. (To borrow Orfeo's panache for capitals.)
On the contrary. Liberals are attempting to redefine an accident of marriage (allowing people who previously would not have been able to be married to become married). Reactionaries are trying to redefine the essence of marriage (from a state-mandated legal relationship sometimes with religious ceremonial sanction that's mutable and changes over time to something that only they have control over and that Must Not Be Changed).
I feel like I am repeating myself, but this begs the question: we actually think that opposite gender lifelong sexual union is the essence of marriage. You don't, I realise, but that is the very issue we are discussing!
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Try to understand that we are simply talking about two different things here. In principle, even if the Christian revelation was utterly wrong, natural moral law could be perfectly right. And vice versa. Of course, in fact they often come to the same conclusion about something, and then concerning that one cannot be right if the other is wrong. But they are in principle independent methodologically and hence their application follows different rules.
There's a huge problem here. You have two sets of unprovable premises. And both of them filtering through exactly the same brains. People consider Chinese Walls in banking a joke where the actual people on the two sides of the Chinese Wall are different. But for your checks and balances to work, you need rather than for your moral philosophers not to talk to each other to not talk to themselves.
quote:
I did not cite Genesis 3:16 at you, but rather Genesis 3:16-18. And the context was that you tried to claim that men are unfairly trying to impose pain and danger on women without being affected themselves. Genesis 3:16-18 shows that firstly this was not imposed by men but rather by God, and secondly that men got their just share of punishment.
Yet mysteriously for all practical purposes Eve shares Adam's punishment but Adam does not share Eve's. And Adam's affects the land whereas Eve's affects her directly.
You're seriously trying to claim that this is not mysogenist?
quote:
Firstly, precisely what does a modern marriage commit people to?
Whatever they and the law decide.
quote:
Secondly, does such commitment not exist in ordinary cohabiting couples?
It depends. I know cohabiting couples who are effectively married. I know ones who live together who keep a lot separate that the law would join together if they were married and they prefer it that way. However because you have no apparent understanding of consent or that people are different you are proposing effectively forcibly marrying them.
quote:
Thirdly, why would a public declaration have to involve the state?
If there are any legal rights or obligations with it (such as legally making your partner your next of kin) of course it involves the state.
quote:
If the fight about "marriage" is merely to gain access to certain benefits, then why bother with re-defining marriage? Why not simply fight for getting the laws regulating such benefits adjusted?
The fight about marriage is about love. It is about rights. It is about respect. All these things and more.
And the easiest way of getting the laws adjusted is in one large block. The Civil Partnership Act of 2004 in the UK has Two hundred and sixty four parts and thirty schedules, several of which have over a hundred parts. However shorn of the legalese it can be condensed into a few short sentences. "This is a civil partnership. It is in all ways legally equivalent to a marriage other than that it is for people of the same sex." However it takes many hundreds (if not thousands) of legal amendments to re-write all the other laws to make it so.
What you are asking gay people to do is first fight more than a thousand separate battles. And then fight battles about an indefinite number of subsequent laws that deal with benefits or relationships.
Do you really think anyone will think this request is a good idea?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I feel like I am repeating myself, but this begs the question: we actually think that opposite gender lifelong sexual union is the essence of marriage. You don't, I realise, but that is the very issue we are discussing!
No. It's the very issue we are not discussing because there is no point. We aren't going to back down on love and commitment and you aren't going to back down on Tab A and Slot B being critical.
The issue we are discussing is how not having legal gay marriage does actual harm and causes suffering. How religiously derived rules of the sort you want have and continue to lead to pain, suffering, and increased bigotry. How irrelevant a bunch of old celibates should be to moral choices about marriage. How you shouldn't force churches to undertake marriages they don't believe in - and how it never has happened in the past.
In short we are discussing how by campaigning for the positions you hold you are causing direct and present suffering. Something you can argue against and that may shift a little ground both ways. And we are asking why you want people to continue to hurt.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I feel like I am repeating myself, but this begs the question: we actually think that opposite gender lifelong sexual union is the essence of marriage. You don't, I realise, but that is the very issue we are discussing!
No. It's the very issue we are not discussing because there is no point.
Er... I think you probably were actually discussing what defines a marriage, and who is trying to define it, when you wrote:
quote:
Liberals are attempting to redefine an accident of marriage (allowing people who previously would not have been able to be married to become married). Reactionaries are trying to redefine the essence of marriage (from a state-mandated legal relationship sometimes with religious ceremonial sanction that's mutable and changes over time to something that only they have control over and that Must Not Be Changed).
Casting bald assertions out into cyberspace and then, when asked to discuss them merely saying "I didn't want you to discuss that, I wanted to discuss why you are a really horrible person" does not a convincing argument make IMO.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Er... I think you probably were actually discussing what defines a marriage, and who is trying to define it, when you wrote:
quote:
Liberals are attempting to redefine an accident of marriage (allowing people who previously would not have been able to be married to become married). Reactionaries are trying to redefine the essence of marriage (from a state-mandated legal relationship sometimes with religious ceremonial sanction that's mutable and changes over time to something that only they have control over and that Must Not Be Changed).
Are you going to change your position on what a marriage is by anything that could possibly be uttered as part of the debate. What I'm challenging is that reactionaries have a monopoly on the meaning of words, as you appear to try to claim. We have competing definitions, and the two are never going to meet.
I do not believe there is any but the thinnest possibility you or IngoB or a number of others can be brought into consensus. And I'm not sliding backwards into the soft homophobic bigotry I was brought up with, let alone the harder line version preached by Conservative Christians.
quote:
Casting bald assertions out into cyberspace and then, when asked to discuss them merely saying "I didn't want you to discuss that, I wanted to discuss why you are a really horrible person" does not a convincing argument make IMO.
Fine. What do you have to discuss? Is there any shred of possibility you (or IngoB) are going to ever admit that your religious beliefs are wrong?
I'm probably a lot more open to change than you are - my position has moved quite a lot over time. (From "Why would they want to?" to "Aren't civil partnerships enough? Legally they are the same thing." to "Civil partnerships are a good start but not a finish.").
But unless I see a possibility of you or IngoB changing your minds then it's not an argument. It's an assertion contest. In which case the consequences of Christian and other homophobia are relevant. By their fruits shall ye know them.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Reactionaries are trying to redefine the essence of marriage (from a state-mandated legal relationship sometimes with religious ceremonial sanction that's mutable and changes over time to something that only they have control over and that Must Not Be Changed).
The way you keep using the words reactionary and redefined shows that you are not listening.
Orfeo has conceded that in Australia the debate in 2004 was whether the marriage law implied 'man and woman'. In other words conservatives were claiming that they were not being reactionary and not doing the redefining.
You clearly disagree but have not engaged in that discussion but rather have adopted the strategy that if you keep using the words they will eventually stick.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Before I respond to some more comments, here's a more general question for those in favour of the "modern" definition of marriage. Why bother? Take your average cohabiting modern couple, of what genders is irrelevant of course, that is happily fornicating or sodomizing or otherwise carrying on in bed. Precisely why should they get married in your opinion? What is the point?
'Should', as some kind of requirement, doesn't come into it. 'Have the choice' is the point.
You can have a public declaration of your intimate relationship and it will be recognised by the State. I can't. They'll look at a whole bunch of factors and decide that yes, the guy I'm living with is my de facto partner, but that's entirely different from having a certificate that ends all discussion about whether or not I meet the criteria.
Standard Australia law on the subject says the following:
quote:
(2) In determining for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) whether 2 persons have a relationship as a couple, all the circumstances of their relationship are to be taken into account, including any or all of the following circumstances:
(a) the duration of the relationship;
(b) the nature and extent of their common residence;
(c) whether a sexual relationship exists;
(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;
(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;
(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
(g) the care and support of children;
(h) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.
There's actually way more detail behind that.
Compare that to marriage. Once you're married, there's a certificate. That's it. Conclusive proof that you're married. Heck of a lot simpler.
But as well as that it's the symbolism of what recognition means. The act of declaration. Marriages are not private ceremonies, they are WITNESSED. It's a social event. There are people who are perfectly content with going about their private business in the bedroom, but for the same reason that heterosexual couples want to publicly declare their relationship and have it obtain a mark of recognition and approval from someone, so do homosexual couples.
It's not rocket science. If you're going to ask 'why bother', then the answer is going to be 'for exactly the same reasons that some straight couples bother'.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But unless I see a possibility of you or IngoB changing your minds then it's not an argument. It's an assertion contest. In which case the consequences of Christian and other homophobia are relevant. By their fruits shall ye know them.
I can't speak for IngoB.
But I'm not sure you understand the word "argument". Generally debates proceed as people state their position and the reasons why they take it. They can then discuss each others reasons as adequate or not. If you are only interested in finding people who will massage your ego by agreeing with your unsubstantiated assertions, why participate in a discussion with people of firm opposing views? Particularly if, in the end, instead of backing up your beliefs, you are simply going to resort to insults.
As it happens, I'm probably not going to change my view of what a marriage is. I am pretty open, however, on my view of what relationships the state should recognise and give benefit to. I haven't really decided about that yet. The relationship between church and state has always been a complex one.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I'm not sure you understand the word "argument". Generally debates proceed as people state their position and the reasons why they take it. They can then discuss each others reasons as adequate or not. If you are only interested in finding people who will massage your ego by agreeing with your unsubstantiated assertions, why participate in a discussion with people of firm opposing views?
I don't think you understand the words "argument" or "premises" based on the above. What I am not interested in discussing is one point on which there is no possibility of coming to agreement or consensus. It's like the abortion debate. "Women who abort are murderers." "No they aren't." "Yes they are." "No they aren't."
This is not a productive discussion. We understand what you mean. You understand what we mean. And unless one side or the other can come up with a radically new way to state the case it's not going to go anywhere. It's repetative and pointless.
We simply have conflicting premises. And have stated them ad nauseam already.
What's interesting is the points where there is room to move, and the consequences of any given possibility. I believe that not having at least gay civil unions is extremely harmful for reasons I have mentioned. I believe that giving some denominations the ability to control what other denominations may perform as sacraments or ceremonies
quote:
Particularly if, in the end, instead of backing up your beliefs, you are simply going to resort to insults.
My "insults" are backing up my beliefs. They are a consequence of the status ante in Britain, or status quo in most of America. A direct consequence of the lack of any sort of legal gay marriage. They are a large part of the argument.
quote:
As it happens, I'm probably not going to change my view of what a marriage is. I am pretty open, however, on my view of what relationships the state should recognise and give benefit to. I haven't really decided about that yet. The relationship between church and state has always been a complex one.
And that is a point that is worth discussing. Going back and forth on "this is marriage" "no this is marriage" isn't. Because it's ultimately just back and forth.
Of course there's also the issue that civil unions are an inherently unstable compromise.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The way you keep using the words reactionary and redefined shows that you are not listening.
Oh, I am listening. And have already conceeded that we want to change the accident of marriage.
However I believe that I am using the term reactionaries correctly. A group of people trying to drag us back into a historical time that never was. And to change the essence of marriage from a legal and changing issue to something controlled by them. (Of course the Roman Catholic Church has been trying to do this since the Council of Trent so they have a long record in this area). The Reactionaries are also trying, as reactionaries do, to impinge on religious freedom; churches may only perform ceremonies that they have approved.
quote:
Orfeo has conceded that in Australia the debate in 2004 was whether the marriage law implied 'man and woman'. In other words conservatives were claiming that they were not being reactionary and not doing the redefining.
Oh, of course they were. They weren't trying to define the accident of marriage. They were trying to redefine the authority from which marriage proceeded to something they had control over.
quote:
You clearly disagree but have not engaged in that discussion but rather have adopted the strategy that if you keep using the words they will eventually stick.
I've engaged in it. See my comments about essence and accident and how the reactionaries are making a power grab. You however haven't engaged with that part of the discussion which leaves it completely on the table.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But I'm not sure you understand the word "argument". Generally debates proceed as people state their position and the reasons why they take it. They can then discuss each others reasons as adequate or not. If you are only interested in finding people who will massage your ego by agreeing with your unsubstantiated assertions, why participate in a discussion with people of firm opposing views?
I don't think you understand the words "argument" or "premises" based on the above. What I am not interested in discussing is one point on which there is no possibility of coming to agreement or consensus. It's like the abortion debate. "Women who abort are murderers." "No they aren't." "Yes they are." "No they aren't."
This is not a productive discussion. We understand what you mean. You understand what we mean. And unless one side or the other can come up with a radically new way to state the case it's not going to go anywhere. It's repetative and pointless.
Well quite. Although I didn't use the word premises.
I am happy not to engage the the discussion. What I am not happy to do do is for you to say:
"The discussion about what or who defines a marriage is pointless. Except that I just need to say that conservatives are redefining marriage. But now the discussion is over, la la la la la I have my fingers my ears because you are such a horrible person, la la la."
Don't bring up an issue unless you are willing to discuss it, that's all.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However you seek to diminish them by restricting them to one function.
No. I'm merely discussing the moral implications of the primary function.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
A knife is the wrong tool for cutting rocks because it dulls the knife blade and doesn't do much to the rock. Not because the tool maker arbitrarily says so.
If the tool-maker had intended to make a tool to split rock, he would not have made a knife, but for example a pick-axe.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Some things have more than one purpose. As it happens, that includes the orgasm, which is used for procreation and pleasure, respectively.
The reason why sex is pleasurable is of course that sex is ordered to procreation. Just like food tastes well because it is ordered to nourishment. Pleasure is a brain function. Through seeking sexual pleasure your chance of fathering offspring increases. Of course, that sexual pleasure is unequivocally targeted at producing more offspring does not stop you from wanking for pleasure. It merely means that this is an abuse of your sexual faculty.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Your definition of marriage goes back to The Council of Trent that re-wrote the book by amongst other things claiming Common Law Marriages to be invalid.
The definition I gave above was "a (more or less) permanent partnership between a man and a woman ordered to the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." I have added "(more or less)" here as per the subsequent discussion. This definition is definitely not an invention of Trent.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
For that matter, do you believe in Democracy?
It is certainly the case that given a choice of countries in the world to live in, my top ten would all be democracies. Probably even the top 30... But democracy is not an item of faith to me as such.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I didn't know you were ready to join the American Tea Party who make very similar claims by making the false equivalence that the government should be run like a household budget.
My claim was that the mathematical rules of addition and subtraction apply in calculating the budget. That is not a policy statement, and I sure hope that it is not just the Tea Party who would agree with that in the US.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And this I'm afraid just shows your ignorance. The vast majority of rapes are by people known to the victim (and generally trusted by - we're talking family and friends not stalkers) rather than by some random violent assailant.
Except that I did not make any claim at all that the violence (or clear and present threat of violence) comes from a stranger. I merely said that in general the lack of consent in the victim has to be overcome by the rapist in order for the rape to take place. I can imagine situations where that is not the case (a regular victim resigned to his/her fate or such), but normally the attacker will have to make some kind of obvious effort to secure the "success" of the attack.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
(I've quoted the relevant bit of the catechism that says that whatever the facts say your views can't change).
There is no such bit, of course. We are not fighting about "facts" here, but about values.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean is there any difference between a ceremonial marriage and a common law marriage?
No, I do not mean that. I mean: why are you fighting so hard to re-define "marriage", when so many couples are not marrying anyhow? If you are so deeply into accommodating real people in the modern world, then why not simply introduce some reasonable rules for people living together? What is the "added value" gained by twisting an old concept into an ill fit to new lifestyles?
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The primary reason is to have the same public recognition of that relationship on all levels that heterosexual couples who choose to marry have.
Firstly, the state is not the public. Secondly, why bother with this trench warfare about marriage? The Tasmanian approach is sane by comparison: If you want equal rules for all "significant others", then just establish a general "relationship law" for all. People that marry can apply to this. People that don't, too. End of story.
I think all this ado about "gay marriage" is at the core about getting people that hold traditional views to admit that they were wrong. It's a moral power game, it's not really about legal and economic justice. If you want only that, then clearly the best tactic is to make laws that address this without requiring any particular viewpoint on what relationships are morally right or wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Unfortunately in some instances the courts have recognized biological relationships over gay relationships.
IIRC courts have also recognized biological relationships over heterosexual ones, e.g., in the case of surrogate mothers. I'm not so sure that that is a "gay issue".
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Let the Church marry who it wants to and turn away those it doesn't. That doesn't mean the state has to follow the church's decisions.
Fine. But then let the state modernize itself and simply talk about "significant relationships". A marriage is a significant relationship, but not all significant relationships are marriages.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However because you have no apparent understanding of consent or that people are different you are proposing effectively forcibly marrying them.
I'm proposing what Tasmania has apparently done (which by the way is hardly suspect of being a theocracy). Make a law about relationships, not marriages. Let the lawgiver provide some set of criteria under which people in a relationship can apply, in order to get whatever benefits the state wants to assign. Problem solved.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The fight about marriage is about love. It is about rights. It is about respect. All these things and more.
Well, that's certainly not working then, other than for the "rights" bit. Hence my suggestion to stick to that bit. I'm not going to respect gay love any more just because the oxymoron "gay marriage" gets forced into law. Somewhat less, actually, because I don't like such ideological idiocy.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Civil Partnership Act of 2004 in the UK has Two hundred and sixty four parts and thirty schedules, several of which have over a hundred parts. However shorn of the legalese it can be condensed into a few short sentences. "This is a civil partnership. It is in all ways legally equivalent to a marriage other than that it is for people of the same sex." However it takes many hundreds (if not thousands) of legal amendments to re-write all the other laws to make it so. What you are asking gay people to do is first fight more than a thousand separate battles.
Not at all. Actually, I was precisely saying that something like this "Civil Partnership Act" you mention should be established. Except I would have gone a bit further and said: "This is a civil partnership. It replaces all previous mentions of marriage in our law. These are the conditions for a civil partnership. Thereby all marriages previously recognized qualify, but so do additional other relationships (e.g., same-sex). Have a nice day humping whomever you like, we don't care." I would then also have reduced or even stopped any direct monetary support from the state for civil partnerships, and redirected all that cash to various forms of family and child support. (This leaves issues like equality under inheritance laws etc. as benefits for all civil partnerships.) That would seem like a rational approach to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But unless I see a possibility of you or IngoB changing your minds then it's not an argument.
I was brought up as a liberal agnostic / atheist, which I remained till about 2000, I was then heavily into Zen Buddhism, and finally converted to Christianity and was baptized in 2007. I'm also a professional natural scientist. I think I'm fairly open to changing my mind given convincing data or reasons, and I sure am not some kind of ultra-conservative in the political sense.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However I believe that I am using the term reactionaries correctly.
But if that is the case then why the reluctance to press ahead with legislation?
If it really is the conservatives that are trying to change the traditional definition why aren't more governments just pressing ahead?
Unless you think that conservatives hold the majority of popular opinion? But then that would imply that they weren't being reactionary?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Liberals are attempting to redefine an accident of marriage (allowing people who previously would not have been able to be married to become married). Reactionaries are trying to redefine the essence of marriage (from a state-mandated legal relationship sometimes with religious ceremonial sanction that's mutable and changes over time to something that only they have control over and that Must Not Be Changed).
If this is what you were talking about then there is more assertion here.
As IngoB has pointed out on several occasions, conservatives are not trying to change marriage 'from a state-mandated legal relationship sometimes with religious ceremonial sanction that's mutable and changes over time to something that only they have control over and that Must Not Be Changed'.
Liberal reactionaries are trying to redefine the essence of marriage. In western society for hundreds of years, regardless of who mandated it, marriage has been understood as between a man and a woman.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The reason why sex is pleasurable is of course that sex is ordered to procreation. Just like food tastes well because it is ordered to nourishment. Pleasure is a brain function. Through seeking sexual pleasure your chance of fathering offspring increases. Of course, that sexual pleasure is unequivocally targeted at producing more offspring does not stop you from wanking for pleasure. It merely means that this is an abuse of your sexual faculty.
Not much pleasure for the wife who was worried about the possibility of getting pregnant for the umpteenth time because there is no contraception.
Eating chocolate is a great pleasure but can lead of obesity. So is chocolate eating an abuse of out 'eating faculty' and is it a mortal or a venial sin?
Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The primary reason is to have the same public recognition of that relationship on all levels that heterosexual couples who choose to marry have.
Firstly, the state is not the public. Secondly, why bother with this trench warfare about marriage? The Tasmanian approach is sane by comparison: If you want equal rules for all "significant others", then just establish a general "relationship law" for all. People that marry can apply to this. People that don't, too. End of story.
I think all this ado about "gay marriage" is at the core about getting people that hold traditional views to admit that they were wrong. It's a moral power game, it's not really about legal and economic justice. If you want only that, then clearly the best tactic is to make laws that address this without requiring any particular viewpoint on what relationships are morally right or wrong.
You really can't be that dense to believe that the fight for gay marriage is just about getting people who disagree with it to admit they're wrong. It's about gay couples wanting the same recognition of their commitment and the legal and tax benefits that go along with it. They want the same normal family life we all want. Those who disagree with it can continue to believe what they want. The RCC or any other church/faith has no right to dictate to the government what marriage is or isn't. People who choose to get married in the church can still be married in the church with all the blessings contained therein and likewise the churches can still refuse to marry any couple they so choose. But marriage is also a civil action as well as a sacrament and as such the state gets to decide what marriages are recognized whether the church likes it or not. For example the RCC refuses to acknowledge the marriage of divorced persons, but the state has no problem with it. The same can hold true with gay marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Unfortunately in some instances the courts have recognized biological relationships over gay relationships.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
IIRC courts have also recognized biological relationships over heterosexual ones, e.g., in the case of surrogate mothers. I'm not so sure that that is a "gay issue".
As long as spousal rights of gays are ignored it is a gay issue as well.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Let the Church marry who it wants to and turn away those it doesn't. That doesn't mean the state has to follow the church's decisions.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Fine. But then let the state modernize itself and simply talk about "significant relationships". A marriage is a significant relationship, but not all significant relationships are marriages.
Why? It is marriage just as the example I gave above of divorced persons is still marriage in the eyes of the state. Marriage is not the exclusive domain of any church or faith.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Some things have more than one purpose. As it happens, that includes the orgasm, which is used for procreation and pleasure, respectively.
The reason why sex is pleasurable is of course that sex is ordered to procreation. Just like food tastes well because it is ordered to nourishment. Pleasure is a brain function. Through seeking sexual pleasure your chance of fathering offspring increases. Of course, that sexual pleasure is unequivocally targeted at producing more offspring does not stop you from wanking for pleasure. It merely means that this is an abuse of your sexual faculty.
Wait a sec. If sex is pleasurable because it's "ordered to procreation", why doesn't that same logic apply to wankery? It's a pleasurable use of the reproductive organs, therefore (by your logic) it's "ordered to procreation". It's also been my observation that the more nourishing food is, the worse it tastes.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I didn't know you were ready to join the American Tea Party who make very similar claims by making the false equivalence that the government should be run like a household budget.
My claim was that the mathematical rules of addition and subtraction apply in calculating the budget. That is not a policy statement, and I sure hope that it is not just the Tea Party who would agree with that in the US.
So you're still denying that there are macroeconomic effects to fiscal policy that don't behave in a purely additive way? Is this derived from Catholic doctrine, or just personal crankery?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
The primary reason is to have the same public recognition of that relationship on all levels that heterosexual couples who choose to marry have.
Firstly, the state is not the public.
Depends on context. Public lands are owned by the state, as are public buildings. Public records refer to records kept by the state, such as property titles and marriage licenses.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think all this ado about "gay marriage" is at the core about getting people that hold traditional views to admit that they were wrong. It's a moral power game, it's not really about legal and economic justice.
Close, but not quite. The shift of "traditional views" from claiming that gays are predatory perverts who need prison and electroshock to accepting that same-sex couples should have legal rights so long they don't get uppity and pretend they're as good as straight folks is already an admission that "traditional views" are wrong. I also find the assertion that "legal and economic justice" don't have anything to do with morality to be bothersome, but not unexpected.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you want only that, then clearly the best tactic is to make laws that address this without requiring any particular viewpoint on what relationships are morally right or wrong.
Ahh, concern trolling.
It should be noted that current marriage law already doesn't require "any particular viewpoint on what relationships are morally right or wrong". For example, the law is the same whether you regard Ronald and Nancy Reagan's marriage (to pick an example likely to be familiar to most) to be morally right or an immoral, adulterous union. I'll believe this is a serious objection when religious conservatives start targeting immoral straight couples for separate legal treatment.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Civil Partnership Act of 2004 in the UK has Two hundred and sixty four parts and thirty schedules, several of which have over a hundred parts. However shorn of the legalese it can be condensed into a few short sentences. "This is a civil partnership. It is in all ways legally equivalent to a marriage other than that it is for people of the same sex." However it takes many hundreds (if not thousands) of legal amendments to re-write all the other laws to make it so. What you are asking gay people to do is first fight more than a thousand separate battles.
Not at all. Actually, I was precisely saying that something like this "Civil Partnership Act" you mention should be established. Except I would have gone a bit further and said: "This is a civil partnership. It replaces all previous mentions of marriage in our law. These are the conditions for a civil partnership. Thereby all marriages previously recognized qualify, but so do additional other relationships (e.g., same-sex). Have a nice day humping whomever you like, we don't care."
Luckily a legal structure like that already exists. It's called "marriage". Given that the state has controlled the legal meaning of this word for decades, if not centuries, it seems a bit late to start complaining now.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not much pleasure for the wife who was worried about the possibility of getting pregnant for the umpteenth time because there is no contraception. Eating chocolate is a great pleasure but can lead of obesity. So is chocolate eating an abuse of out 'eating faculty' and is it a mortal or a venial sin?
Both of these cases fall under the "too much of a good thing" category, rather than the "abuse" category we've been talking about. The corresponding cardinal vice is of course gluttony. Whether it is mortal or venial will depend on the situation. The opposing virtue is then temperance. If you don't want to get fat, eat less chocolate. If you don't want to have more kids, have less sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
You really can't be that dense to believe that the fight for gay marriage is just about getting people who disagree with it to admit they're wrong. It's about gay couples wanting the same recognition of their commitment and the legal and tax benefits that go along with it.
You are not particularly listening, are you? My point was not that the fight for equal benefits is wrong, but rather that the way it is carried out suggests ulterior motives. Either that, or the "gay lobby" is plain dumb.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
As long as spousal rights of gays are ignored it is a gay issue as well.
No. It would be an issue also for gays, which is not the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Why?
Because there's no practical point in redefining a word which has meant pretty much the same thing for thousands of years, if injustices can be taken care of otherwise. (Well, actually the meaning of "marriage" is only as old as that word itself, but that word developed naturally out of another word with the same meaning, and so on back to the mist of time...)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If sex is pleasurable because it's "ordered to procreation", why doesn't that same logic apply to wankery?
Vaginal intercourse is ordered to procreation, and pleasurable, so that you get motivated to procreate. In this derived sense then, sexual pleasure is also ordered to procreation. Since however a biological mechanism is necessary to generate sexual pleasure (stimulus of nerves in the genitals evoking a pleasure response in the brain), this mechanism can be "hacked" to separate sexual pleasure from any chance of procreation. That's your wanking. It clearly is not procreative.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So you're still denying that there are macroeconomic effects to fiscal policy that don't behave in a purely additive way? Is this derived from Catholic doctrine, or just personal crankery?
You are, of course, again blatantly misrepresenting what I said - both back then, as wel as now ("not a policy statement"!). The laws of addition and subtraction are not mutable. 2+2=4, no matter when, where, or by whom. The only thing that can be discussed is what if anything should be added or subtracted in the case at hand.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The shift of "traditional views" from claiming that gays are predatory perverts who need prison and electroshock to accepting that same-sex couples should have legal rights so long they don't get uppity and pretend they're as good as straight folks is already an admission that "traditional views" are wrong.
You are mixing up politics and religion here. This may well be historically justified in the sense that such traditional laws may well have been motivated by traditional religious views. However, I have traditional views concerning gay sex, yet I do not believe that the traditional laws serve the common good well. Since I consider my position quite rational and free of contradiction, I consequently think that the traditional mixture is not necessary - even if it was ubiquitous.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ahh, concern trolling.
Let's be perfectly clear here. Are you accusing me of being a troll, or at least acting as a troll on this thread? No bullshit please, just a straight answer.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'll believe this is a serious objection when religious conservatives start targeting immoral straight couples for separate legal treatment.
What on earth are you talking about? I've just said that legislation should be passed which avoids getting into the morality of relationships as much as possible, but rather merely specifies "mechanistically" how the state will deal with the significant relationships individuals form. And if gays are not pushing for such laws, but rather picking a fight with the "traditional marriage" crowd about the definition of marriage, then more is going on than merely levelling the playing field on state rules and regulations.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the state has controlled the legal meaning of this word for decades, if not centuries, it seems a bit late to start complaining now.
Nonsense. The state has not previously included relationships in its definition of "marriage" that are entirely at odds with the common usage of the word. When the state is calling a spade a kind of spoon, then it is perfectly legitimate to complain.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The shift of "traditional views" from claiming that gays are predatory perverts who need prison and electroshock to accepting that same-sex couples should have legal rights so long they don't get uppity and pretend they're as good as straight folks is already an admission that "traditional views" are wrong.
You are mixing up politics and religion here.
Not at all. You're adding in a distintion post hoc that wasn't in your original post.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This may well be historically justified in the sense that such traditional laws may well have been motivated by traditional religious views. However, I have traditional views concerning gay sex, yet I do not believe that the traditional laws serve the common good well. Since I consider my position quite rational and free of contradiction, I consequently think that the traditional mixture is not necessary - even if it was ubiquitous.
The traditional view of gay sex, both political and religious, is that it should be criminalized. Or exorcised. If you're not in favor of that, then your view isn't "traditional" in any meaningful sense of the term and calling it such is just an attempt to gain legitimacy through a fake claim of antiquity. For someone with such strong feelings about the correct lexicographical use of the word "marriage", you play pretty fast and loose with the meaning of "traditional".
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Ahh, concern trolling.
Let's be perfectly clear here. Are you accusing me of being a troll, or at least acting as a troll on this thread? No bullshit please, just a straight answer.
Wow, you are committed to this whole "straights only" thing!
quote:
concern troll: In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns".
Yes. I find your claims to be interested in the equal legal rights of those you consider to be evildoers* insincere, and your advice on tactics similar to that of closeting advocates. You obviously set greater importance on your horror at the idea of gay couples using the word "married" to describe themselves as if they were good, decent straights than you do on any substantive issue of actual legal equality that you claim to be in favor of.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should be noted that current marriage law already doesn't require "any particular viewpoint on what relationships are morally right or wrong". For example, the law is the same whether you regard Ronald and Nancy Reagan's marriage (to pick an example likely to be familiar to most) to be morally right or an immoral, adulterous union. I'll believe this is a serious objection when religious conservatives start targeting immoral straight couples for separate legal treatment.
What on earth are you talking about? I've just said that legislation should be passed which avoids getting into the morality of relationships as much as possible, but rather merely specifies "mechanistically" how the state will deal with the significant relationships individuals form.
I'm talking about the fact that marriage law already "specifies "mechanistically" how the state will deal with the significant relationships individuals form". I've yet to hear a complaint from the traditional** values crowd about having the word "marriage" applied to the Reagans' relationship. For some reason calling them "married" isn't considered "getting into the morality of relationships", but it suddenly becomes a problem if the term is applied to the proverbial Adam and Steve.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that the state has controlled the legal meaning of this word for decades, if not centuries, it seems a bit late to start complaining now.
Nonsense. The state has not previously included relationships in its definition of "marriage" that are entirely at odds with the common usage of the word. When the state is calling a spade a kind of spoon, then it is perfectly legitimate to complain.
Sure it has. As noted previously the most obvious such change is including relationships under which the husband and wife are legal equals. Such marriages were "entirely at odds with the common usage of the word" at the time. A "marriage of equals" was seen as just as much an oxymoron as you see same-sex marriage.
____________________
*If you don't consider gays to be evildoers then your lengthy series of posts on why the state shouldn't sanction evil is an equally trollish timewaster.
**Values may not reflect actual traditions.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sure it has. As noted previously the most obvious such change is including relationships under which the husband and wife are legal equals. Such marriages were "entirely at odds with the common usage of the word" at the time. A "marriage of equals" was seen as just as much an oxymoron as you see same-sex marriage.
That, ISTM, is not how society works or has worked.
Marriage has existed for millennia (a few before the Christians were around) and it has always been understood as a covenant between a man and a woman. The details of that covenant have varied greatly over time and place (incl. even man and women) but to change the fact that it is between people of opposite sex is to change its essence.
[ 03. November 2011, 22:18: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Sure it has. As noted previously the most obvious such change is including relationships under which the husband and wife are legal equals. Such marriages were "entirely at odds with the common usage of the word" at the time. A "marriage of equals" was seen as just as much an oxymoron as you see same-sex marriage.
That, ISTM, is not how society works or has worked.
Marriage has existed for millennia (a few before the Christians were around) and it has always been understood as a covenant between a man and a woman. The details of that covenant have varied greatly over time and place (incl. even man and women) but to change the fact that it is between people of opposite sex is to change its essence.
Except that changing the understanding of 'woman' from 'subordinate partner' to 'equal partner' represents just as great a change in the "essence" of marriage.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that changing the understanding of 'woman' from 'subordinate partner' to 'equal partner' represents just as great a change in the "essence" of marriage.
Sadly, it doesn't. Human history shows that the details of that covenant can vary greatly but as long as it includes a man and a woman societies call it marriage.
We've come a long way in rights for workers since the days of slavery. Today most countries have clear legislation governing the relationships between employer and employee. That is good and the push for justice should continue. However, if I contact the Australian Fair Work Ombudsman asking for advice about a dispute with my neighbour they will think I'm mad. Same human rights but different relationship.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not at all. You're adding in a distintion post hoc that wasn't in your original post.
I've been maintaining such distinctions basically from the start, see for example here, in a direct answer to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The traditional view of gay sex, both political and religious, is that it should be criminalized. Or exorcised.
The traditional religious view is that it is an evil, to be dealt with, as for other sins, in confession. I'm not aware that people thought homosexuality required an exorcism in practice. To "criminalize" something is a prerogative of the state. The closest to this was perhaps the Inquisition, which however did not execute its judgements (again, this was left to the state), was at best partially under the control of religious authority (there is a reason why for example the Spanish inquisition has this name) and anyhow to the best of my knowledge didn't have homosexuality as its target (but rather heresy).
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you're not in favor of that, then your view isn't "traditional" in any meaningful sense of the term and calling it such is just an attempt to gain legitimacy through a fake claim of antiquity.
Nonsense. We've had this debate. The key indicator of "tradition" in Roman Catholicism are the official statements issued by the Vatican. These do not contradict each other through history concerning homosexuality, and my opinion is in line with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Yes. I find your claims to be interested in the equal legal rights of those you consider to be evildoers* insincere, and your advice on tactics similar to that of closeting advocates.
There are two things I find quite amazing here. Firstly, that you consider a constant barrage of insults to be a proper way of conducting an argument. There's hardly a post that you write which does not in some way or form question your opponent's integrity, intelligence or knowledge. Secondly, that you get away with it. Clearly, you've made some kind of sport out of insulting people just below threshold of hostly action. It'll be interesting to see though if you get called on this one by a host. Normally "troll" is seriously off-limits, but of course it's rather obvious how you are going to play this.
But I don't get your game. I really have no idea what's going on in your head. And I don't mean that we disagree on this or that. I disagree with plenty of people on all sorts of things. Perhaps I've simply never encountered actual hate before. Weird. Perhaps the world is a better place than I thought.
Anyway, as you were...
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You obviously set greater importance on your horror at the idea of gay couples using the word "married" to describe themselves as if they were good, decent straights than you do on any substantive issue of actual legal equality that you claim to be in favor of.
I've no idea what you are talking about. I've been pretty clear about what I support and what not, and how you can claim that my explicit support for something like the Tasmanian approach is not "substantive" concerning "actual legal equality" is beyond me.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I've yet to hear a complaint from the traditional** values crowd about having the word "marriage" applied to the Reagans' relationship.
I've no idea in what sort of relationship the Reagans are supposed to have been, according to your opinion. They are certainly no heroes of mine, and I've not followed news about them closely. I was in my teens when he was president. The typical reaction to the Reagans among young Germans was something like "how typical of the stupid Americans, they elect a brainless - and later brain-diseased - B-movie actor as their president". Are you suggesting that they were not married, at least not to each other? OK. Then they were fornicators, or adulterers, or perhaps bigamists. I don't know. Do you have a point there somewhere?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As noted previously the most obvious such change is including relationships under which the husband and wife are legal equals. Such marriages were "entirely at odds with the common usage of the word" at the time. A "marriage of equals" was seen as just as much an oxymoron as you see same-sex marriage.
Complete bollocks. Firstly, marriages in particular among paupers / commoners but occasionally also among nobility were a lot more equal in ancient to medieval times than you apparently think. Secondly, that does not really matter anyhow. The general status of women in society certainly influenced how the average wedding and marriage was organized. But it did not at all affect the core principle of marriage: that a man and a woman from different families (or at least: not too closely related) form an enduring social and sexual union which typically results in offspring and hence a new family as part of the next generation. If you explained to a 17thC man what the rights of a woman in a 21stC marriage are, he may well be amazed. But he would be amazed at how we do marriage these days, he would certainly still recognize this as a marriage. Whereas this is simply not the case for a gay relationship. He would think that you are pulling his leg if you called this a marriage. And so do I.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
This what the straight majority culture has caused - the fruit of many years for gay people :_
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/11/03/over-a-third-of-irelands-older-lgbt-people-fear-rejection-in-society/
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except that changing the understanding of 'woman' from 'subordinate partner' to 'equal partner' represents just as great a change in the "essence" of marriage.
Sadly, it doesn't. Human history shows that the details of that covenant can vary greatly but as long as it includes a man and a woman societies call it marriage.
And in a couple of generations time, it's entirely possible that someone will argue that human history shows that the details of that covenant can vary greatly but as long as it includes two adults societies call it marriage.
As much as I understand what you're trying to say, I think that you're arguing from the conclusion and not from anything that's self-evident. The High Court gets into this sort of issue a lot of the time in constitutional cases, and talks about the 'connotation' and 'denotation' of words, because they recognise that there's a list of subjects that the Commonwealth has legislative power over, but the list was written in the 1890s and the world contains many things now that just weren't in contemplation at the time. They have, for instance, accepted that "postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services" covers a whole range of forms of communication that weren't dreamt about at the time, because the reference is to forms of communication.
Given that 'marriage' is one of the other subjects in the same list, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the High Court is at some point called upon to consider what the essence of a marriage is. And it seems entirely possible to me that they will decide the essence of it is the forming of a contractual bond within a relationship, and that the gender of the parties is NOT part of the essence. It entirely depends on what level of abstraction and generalisation you set the 'essence' at.
How you do that is essentially purposive. It's rarely self-evident. I don't say that just because of my personal views on this particular issue. All the time, I come across discussions where people talk at different levels of abstraction because of what THEY see as the important attributes. And that's a policy decision they've made. It's very rare that there's actually any objective way of saying that this is an essential part, but this isn't.
And multiple levels exist at the same time. As I recall discussing on the Ship in a completely different context, an apple is not an orange, but they are both fruit. A single thing answers more than one description, and people will come to different decisions about whether, when talking about the apple they're eating, they say they love apples or they say they love fruit. Which is essential to their enjoyment? Is the person who says that they love fruit getting the essence wrong because to you what dictates like or dislike is whether it's an apple? Well, no.
But, when it comes to writing something collective, you're going to have to decide, are you talking about fruit or are you talking about apples. If someone points out that what you're saying about apples applies equally to pears, do you want to take that into account or not?
And the law of the land is very much a collective exercise.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
A knife is the wrong tool for cutting rocks because it dulls the knife blade and doesn't do much to the rock. Not because the tool maker arbitrarily says so.
If the tool-maker had intended to make a tool to split rock, he would not have made a knife, but for example a pick-axe.
Heh. This spontaneously reminded me of a play my old church drama group put on, with one bird trying to encourage another to fly.
"If God wanted us to fly, he would have given us propellors!"
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Given that 'marriage' is one of the other subjects in the same list, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if the High Court is at some point called upon to consider what the essence of a marriage is. And it seems entirely possible to me that they will decide the essence of it is the forming of a contractual bond within a relationship, and that the gender of the parties is NOT part of the essence. It entirely depends on what level of abstraction and generalisation you set the 'essence' at.
<snip>
And the law of the land is very much a collective exercise.
The law of the land is very much a collective exercise and therefore part of the process is listening to a large number of the citizens (majority?) who think / believe / feel that the gender of the parties is part of the essence.
At the end of the day they may or may not win their case but whether it is entirely possible or not is largely irrelevant.
Pointing out the precedent for change is one thing, arguing that the majority of the people want a further change is another.
The legal definition of marriage will always keep changing to fit what society thinks marriage is. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it - i.e. claim that society can change its definition as it chooses and then tell said society what it must change it to.
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
Crœsos and IngoB - your recent bickering is within a whisker of being called 'personal attack'. If you want to continue in this vein, you know where to to take it ....
Also please knock off the 'Junior Hosting'. If you have a complaint about another shipmate's posts, contact one of the hosts - me in this case, since Louise has contributed to the thread and thus should not (according to the Hosts' guidelines) act in her hostly capacity on this thread.
Personally I think this thread has gone on long enough - but that's up to you guys if you feel it's worth continuing...
Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>
Yours aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Firstly, marriages in particular among paupers / commoners but occasionally also among nobility were a lot more equal in ancient to medieval times than you apparently think. Secondly, that does not really matter anyhow. The general status of women in society certainly influenced how the average wedding and marriage was organized. But it did not at all affect the core principle of marriage: that a man and a woman from different families (or at least: not too closely related) form an enduring social and sexual union which typically results in offspring and hence a new family as part of the next generation. If you explained to a 17thC man what the rights of a woman in a 21stC marriage are, he may well be amazed. But he would be amazed at how we do marriage these days, he would certainly still recognize this as a marriage. Whereas this is simply not the case for a gay relationship. He would think that you are pulling his leg if you called this a marriage.
I think that you are (very likely) factually right about that, but I don't think that it is a solid enough basis to define the essence of marriage. There would be people, and societies, which would not call polygamous arrangements "marriages" (example - it was at one time the law in England that a Mormon ‘marriage' was not a marriage, even if it involved only two people, because at the time Mormon marriage was in principle open to the addition of new partners, and the English Courts felt that even in cases where this had not happened, and the parties had no intention of it happening, the possibility alone was so contrary to what "marriage" meant to them that no Mormon arrangement could count as one). Someone with multiple wives might well refuse to recognise as marriage an arrangement with multiple husbands. I know two married couples in openly polyamorous relationships, - UK law recognises their marriages, but I doubt the man in the C17th street would have. Some churches don't recognise the marriages of divorced people. And there are, I believe, several examples of married Orthodox saints who (with their partners' consents) wed with the intention of never having sex, so would not count as married on the ‘open to procreation' definition.
Which is to say that gay marriage is not the only variation on the theme of ‘marriage'. There isn't a single generally accepted essence. In practice, in Western Europe for the most of the last few hundred years, most people would have generally understood the same sort of thing when the word was used, because in practice marriages were one man, one woman, leading to children. But people who share that common expectation of what marriage is could reasonably differ on whether polygamists are ‘really' married.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you mean "natural moral law", it is a way of getting a moral "ought" form the way nature "is", by analysing the purpose things appear to have in nature.
[...]
The reason why sex is pleasurable is of course that sex is ordered to procreation. Just like food tastes well because it is ordered to nourishment. Pleasure is a brain function. Through seeking sexual pleasure your chance of fathering offspring increases. Of course, that sexual pleasure is unequivocally targeted at producing more offspring does not stop you from wanking for pleasure. It merely means that this is an abuse of your sexual faculty.
I don't think you can get from ‘is' to ‘ought' in that way.
For example, my legs are just as obviously ordered to locomotion as my penis is to procreation. I wouldn't have legs if my species did not use such contrivances to get from A to B efficiently. But if I go to the gym, and see a room full of people on treadmills, going through the motions of running in order to derive a secondary benefit (fitness) it would never occur to me that I had come upon a den of evildoers abusing their locomotive faculty. Approximately no one, not Catholics and not anyone else, thinks that running machines are sinful.
Similarly, I don't think it would have occured to anyone considering going through the motions of sexual stimulation in order to derive a secondary benefit (pleasure), that they were abusing their sexual faculty, unless they already thought, or had been told, that masturbation was wrong.
‘Natural moral law' is a powerful explanatory principle - if you believe on authority that homosexuality, contraception and masturbation are all sins, then it is possible to make sense of all of that by reasoning that there are right and wrong uses of sex, and that the ‘ordered to procreation' principle explains which activities fall on which side of the line. I don't think it really works as a first principle - the "is" of nature does not in fact suffice in deciding whether masturbation is an ingenious adaptation of sexuality to a good purpose, or a depraved misuse of it.
(FWIW, I do think that there is a case to be made against masturbation in Christian ethics, though as a protestant, I am not at all inclined to be dogmatic about it.)
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The law of the land is very much a collective exercise and therefore part of the process is listening to a large number of the citizens (majority?) who think / believe / feel that the gender of the parties is part of the essence.
[...]
The legal definition of marriage will always keep changing to fit what society thinks marriage is. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it - i.e. claim that society can change its definition as it chooses and then tell said society what it must change it to.
That's because I (and I think orfeo) do not think that counting hands is the be all and end all of correct legal decision making.
I believe that if society is to impose a serious restriction on its citizens, in circumstances where most of those who are directly affected do not consent, the majority will is not an adequate justification. There must be some reason in principle to support the restriction, which society as a whole generally accepts. "The Bible says so" is a reason in principle, as is "This is not the right use of sex, because it is not ordered to procreation", but neither of these is one that is generally accepted by society or reflected in any other laws concerning sexual ethics. To impose those principles in this case and in no other is bad faith. Widespread homophobia does not justify legal discrimination, any more than widespread racism would justify apartheid. Bigotry is not a moral principle. The majority in this instance cannot give a good principled reason to stop gays from marrying.
I think we owe it to people not to impose whole-life-affecting restrictions on them without good reason. By which I mean, society as a whole should generally endorse the principles that restrict liberty and apply them to everyone. And we don't apply Christian sexual ethics to everyone in our laws. There isn't the remotest chance of us doing so.
To put the point another way - I don't suppose that you are going to be so bold as to claim that gay marriage can be voted down using only the votes of those who in sincere charity and good faith cannot escape the conclusion that it is against God. Which means that your conservative (and principled) Christian minority needs the support of homophobes who will vote against the gays from motives of hate. Do you really want those allies? Would you feel proud of a victory won at that price?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The law of the land is very much a collective exercise and therefore part of the process is listening to a large number of the citizens (majority?) who think / believe / feel that the gender of the parties is part of the essence.
[...]
The legal definition of marriage will always keep changing to fit what society thinks marriage is. You seem to want to have your cake and eat it - i.e. claim that society can change its definition as it chooses and then tell said society what it must change it to.
That's because I (and I think orfeo) do not think that counting hands is the be all and end all of correct legal decision making.
I believe that if society is to impose a serious restriction on its citizens, in circumstances where most of those who are directly affected do not consent, the majority will is not an adequate justification. There must be some reason in principle to support the restriction, which society as a whole generally accepts. "The Bible says so" is a reason in principle, as is "This is not the right use of sex, because it is not ordered to procreation", but neither of these is one that is generally accepted by society or reflected in any other laws concerning sexual ethics.
Yes Eliab, you have pretty much hit upon my reasoning as well. The main thrust of any 'should' in my argument is that society has expressed wider principles about sexual ethics, but not followed them through in the case of marriage. If anything, I suppose I am arguing at an even higher level of abstraction than the ones I was referring to earlier, such that marriage is just one aspect of sexual morality rather than a topic in and of itself. And at that higher level, society now says that homosexual coupling is acceptable.
The 2008 amendments to around 100 laws in Australia were a conscious decision to remove inconsistencies that had developed about the treatment of relationships, and in some cases the inconsistency was not merely the exclusion of same-sex couples. The process was effectively an audit of the statute book to even everything up again.
The initial audit by the Australian Human Rights Commission in 2007 focused on laws that created unequal treatment in financial and work-related areas. Part of the reason they did this was to avoid the political fallout that might arise if they touched marriage. But they did this by focusing on topics - finance and employment - that didn't depend on marital status.
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/index.html
The new government quite deliberately decided to expand the scope to look at ALL laws that might not treat same-sex couples and their children equally.
Well, almost all. Marriage was excluded, simply because it's marriage. Not because there's some physical impossibility in two people of the same sex standing up and making vows.
There's a glaring exception to a general principle, and all the attempts I ever see to justify the exception on a PRINCIPLED basis fall back on either (1) procreation or (2) morality. Which, as I've previously explained, seems inconsistent with (1) the actual legal rules of marriage or (2) the very basis of agreeing to recognise same-sex couples in every other situation.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Addendum: Also, polling is tending to suggeset that the current definition is not in step with societal opinion in any case. There are indications of majority favour for same sex marriage. All depends on your poll of course.
So while no, I don't think hand counting is the be all and end all, the hand counting argument is quite possibly in my favour anyway, and it's certainly not strongly against me.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
However you seek to diminish them by restricting them to one function.
No. I'm merely discussing the moral implications of the primary function.
The supposed primary function as defined by the Roman Catholic Church and in flat contradiction to the principles of natural law. If the exclusive primary function of sex were indeed procreation then humans would be more like dogs. Only really ready for sex when they were fertile - and displaying that fertility clearly and obviously to all around them. As dogs do on heat. But humans don't. You can't look at a human woman even without clothes and tell immediately if she's fertile. What symptoms there are are naturally disguised and played down rather than advertised. Making it actively harder to have procreative sex. And because the human body (male or female) is sexually ready at all times whether fertile or not, it actively encourages non-procreative sex while hindering procreative sex. This is rare in the animal kingdom and acts as a natural impediment to procreative sex while being absolutely perfect for sex for social bonding.
Therefore when we look at the human body, we find that sex is ordered to the social functions in ways that actively impede the procreative function. And if the adaptations actively impede a function then we can say categorically that whatever is not adapted primarily towards that function.
Therefore the Roman Catholic claim that sex is ordered towards procreation is made in defiance of Natural Law. A major function of sex is procreation. But it is not the sole or even exclusive function of sex and indeed the human body is ordered against it being the exclusive function.
quote:
If the tool-maker had intended to make a tool to split rock, he would not have made a knife, but for example a pick-axe.
Once I have bought a tool, I barely give a sparrow's fart what the toolmaker intended it for. What's important is how well the tool can do the job I want it for. And there are two factors by which I measure how good a tool is. The first is how well made it is for its primary purpose. The second is how versatile, flexible, and generally useful it is often for functions the toolmaker didn't think of. Now a knife is a sucky tool for smashing rocks. But a hammer can be an excellent tool for smashing rocks whether or not the idea had crossed the toolmaker's mind. And by denying the use of the hammer to smash rocks because it isn't precisely what the toolmaker had in mind, you are diminishing the hammer. And IMO being highly uncharitable towards the toolmaker - when I make a tool I'm delighted to find it being used for something I didn't anticipate.
quote:
The reason why sex is pleasurable is of course that sex is ordered to procreation.
As stated above, if this were true then procreative sex would inherently feel different to the partners than non-procreative sex, and the body would easily demonstrate when it was actually ready for procreation rather than going to lengths to disguise this.
quote:
I have added "(more or less)" here as per the subsequent discussion. This definition is definitely not an invention of Trent.
No. The Council of Trent was a naked reactionary power grab as a part of the counter-reformation that amongst other things sought to change marriage from being a social action blessed by the church to a religious one.
quote:
My claim was that the mathematical rules of addition and subtraction apply in calculating the budget.
Which is almost exactly the claim (comparing the budget to a household budget) made by the Tea Party. No one denies that arithmetic applies. It's just the reductionist reasoning and denial of complexity that makes people think this is profound.
quote:
That is not a policy statement, and I sure hope that it is not just the Tea Party who would agree with that in the US.
It's simply that few others bother to say so because it's such a fundamental.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
(I've quoted the relevant bit of the catechism that says that whatever the facts say your views can't change).
There is no such bit, of course.
"Under no circumstances can they be approved." Which, by the plain meaning of the text says that if unambiguous divine revalation said they were to go ahead they still couldn't be approved. Now I think even the RCC would change its tune here and isn't quite that extreme.
quote:
We are not fighting about "facts" here, but about values.
Both.
quote:
No, I do not mean that. I mean: why are you fighting so hard to re-define "marriage", when so many couples are not marrying anyhow? If you are so deeply into accommodating real people in the modern world, then why not simply introduce some reasonable rules for people living together? What is the "added value" gained by twisting an old concept into an ill fit to new lifestyles?
Because separate but equal only holds to one or the other.
quote:
Firstly, the state is not the public. Secondly, why bother with this trench warfare about marriage? The Tasmanian approach is sane by comparison: If you want equal rules for all "significant others", then just establish a general "relationship law" for all. People that marry can apply to this. People that don't, too. End of story.
Because it is my firm belief that if that was tried then the cry from the Conservatives would be "They are trying to ban marriage." And it would have a lot of truth in it.
The compromise position put forward is one that can be put forward by the people who oppose gay marriage. But would be a disaster proposed by people who are in favour of gay marriage. For one thing it involves redefining the essence of marraige away from a state-mandated legal relationship.
This is a proposal that would allow the anti-gay marriage lobby to make absolute PR hay without doing a thing to assist towards equal rights. The majority in my experience doesn't care as long as you leave them alone. But instead of fighting for equality, you want the pro-gay marriage lobby to strip everyone of legal marriages?
And you seriously expect anyone to think this is a good idea?
quote:
I think all this ado about "gay marriage" is at the core about getting people that hold traditional views to admit that they were wrong.
And I think it's all about people who hold traditional views wanting to not admit that they could possibly be wrong.
quote:
It's a moral power game, it's not really about legal and economic justice. If you want only that, then clearly the best tactic is to make laws that address this without requiring any particular viewpoint on what relationships are morally right or wrong.
So your method of doing this is to attack those not already in the fight. Right. The validity of a gay marriage says nothing about the validity of yours. Howeve redefining the essence of marriage away from its legal framework litterally deprecates all existing marriages.
quote:
IIRC courts have also recognized biological relationships over heterosexual ones, e.g., in the case of surrogate mothers. I'm not so sure that that is a "gay issue".
Read this and get back to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Fine. But then let the state modernize itself and simply talk about "significant relationships".
Why? If you think the state should do this, you make the case. You make the case that people who had previously been married should now not be married. This is your hobby horse, not that of those in favour of gay marriage. You are the one who should be campaigning for it. Not them. And stop insisting people you oppose should ride your hobby horse.
quote:
Not at all. Actually, I was precisely saying that something like this "Civil Partnership Act" you mention should be established. Except I would have gone a bit further and said: "This is a civil partnership. It replaces all previous mentions of marriage in our law.
Why do you hate marriage and seek to abolish the marraiges of others?
Oh wait. This is the power grab I've been accusing you of laid utterly naked. The attempt to change the essence of marriage from a civil to a religious institution.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
To put the point another way - I don't suppose that you are going to be so bold as to claim that gay marriage can be voted down using only the votes of those who in sincere charity and good faith cannot escape the conclusion that it is against God. Which means that your conservative (and principled) Christian minority needs the support of homophobes who will vote against the gays from motives of hate. Do you really want those allies? Would you feel proud of a victory won at that price?
You are right that I don't want those allies, but I don't think that is a fair comment.
Orfeo and others have pointed out that the definition of marriage has changed a lot of time. This is cited as evidence that it can be changed in the future.
However, each time any change has happened it has been due to a perfect storm of social factors. Usually a mixture of (morally) good and bad. That is always going to be the case in a democratic society. Why is it going to be any different this time? (And are you really claiming that supporters of gay marriage will eschew any of their unsavoury allies? e.g. polygamists who see this as a step in the right direction for them.) I would love it to be different but it isn't. The alternative to appoint a benign dictator who will simply make the decision for us.
In Church, for Christians, I'd want to make a decision on principle. I'd like society to make a similar decision but I know that, in a democracy, decisions will always come down to coalitions. That will be the case whichever way this particular decision goes. It equally applies to those who support gay marriage. And it will happen (on both sides) whether I like it or not.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But if that is the case then why the reluctance to press ahead with legislation?
If it really is the conservatives that are trying to change the traditional definition why aren't more governments just pressing ahead?
Because it's change. And the government is only in favour of meaningless change for no reason. I believe the majority of popular opinion on most topics boils down to "Keep the noise down and let us live our lives in peace". And the government changes such things when it's noisier to keep them as they are than to change them.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As IngoB has pointed out on several occasions, conservatives are not trying to change marriage 'from a state-mandated legal relationship sometimes with religious ceremonial sanction that's mutable and changes over time to something that only they have control over and that Must Not Be Changed'.
IngoB wants the state to abolish state mandated legal marriages entirely, replacing them with something else. And you say he doesn't want to change marriage from a state mandated legal relationship?
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
State mandated (or vetted) marriages will never be abolished as long as the State plays a role in the ownership and disposition of property.
Saying the State should get out of the marriage business may sound good in these individualistic times. But if the State actually did that it would mean that all couples would have to do what gay couples do now: spend thousands of dollars drawing up legal contracts that clarify who gets what within the marriage and where assets would go if one of the partners leaves the marriage through divorce or death, that ultimately may or may not be enforcible.
Like it or not, as long as there are nation-states, there will be some form of civil marriage, as one of the primary roles (arguably, the most primary role) of the State is to safeguard property.
[ 04. November 2011, 16:43: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
http://www.beyondexgay.com/voice
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, each time any change has happened it has been due to a perfect storm of social factors. Usually a mixture of (morally) good and bad. That is always going to be the case in a democratic society. Why is it going to be any different this time? (And are you really claiming that supporters of gay marriage will eschew any of their unsavoury allies? e.g. polygamists who see this as a step in the right direction for them.)
On the specific question, if it were hypothetically true that gay marriage could be successfully implemented only on the basis of the principles underlying traditional polygamy (wives are a mark of wealth and status, and it is good to own as many of them as you can) then I would indeed not support it. I would regret that decision, because I generally support marriage as a good thing, but not at the price of making my society more like one in which women are property. The principles on which legal changes are made really do matter - sometimes as much or more than the changes themselves.
Fortunately, I am in the happy position of supporting gay marriage on the basis of principles which command wide assent - those of equality and consent - and which are already strongly represented in the laws governing sexual activity. Almost everyone, even opponents of gay marriage, broadly supports the principles of legal equality and the importance of consent, even if they hold these in parallel with principles about right sexual behaviour. That is simply not true about your side of the debate. Your best motives, however rightly or sincerely you may hold them, are not those of society as a whole and you know it. You can't win without the support of bigots. You can't win without making society more homophobic. Therefore you ought to concede.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
[qb]Not much pleasure for the wife who was worried about the possibility of getting pregnant for the umpteenth time because there is no contraception. Eating chocolate is a great pleasure but can lead of obesity. So is chocolate eating an abuse of out 'eating faculty' and is it a mortal or a venial sin?
Both of these cases fall under the "too much of a good thing" category, rather than the "abuse" category we've been talking about. The corresponding cardinal vice is of course gluttony. /QB]
I see - so a LITTLE big of masturbation is OK - say no more than twice daily! More, is too much (well, it is at my age.)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
On the specific question, if it were hypothetically true that gay marriage could be successfully implemented only on the basis of the principles underlying traditional polygamy (wives are a mark of wealth and status, and it is good to own as many of them as you can) then I would indeed not support it. I would regret that decision, because I generally support marriage as a good thing, but not at the price of making my society more like one in which women are property. The principles on which legal changes are made really do matter - sometimes as much or more than the changes themselves.
I really don't follow where you are going with this.
My point was not that I suspected a polygamist lobby group involved in this but rather that it is impossible to tell exactly why people are for or against an issue like this.
Let's say governments held a referendum on it. Sides for and against would campaign. During the campaign issues would be batted around and certain things may come to the fore. But when the votes were cast you'd not be certain what clinched it either way in the minds of the voters. Whoever won would, no doubt, claim it was down to their noble aim but we would never know for sure.
In Australia whenever this issue is discussed in the press it is very common for lots of comments (on line) in favour of gay marriage to be about what a mess marriage is these days. Now, I want to stress that I do not read this into it, but it would easy to say that a vote for marriage (by some) is a vote against heterosexual marriage. Again, I'm not saying this, I'm just pointing out that your noble desire for change based on good principle only is, at best, hopeless naive.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Fortunately, I am in the happy position of supporting gay marriage on the basis of principles which command wide assent - those of equality and consent - and which are already strongly represented in the laws governing sexual activity. Almost everyone, even opponents of gay marriage, broadly supports the principles of legal equality and the importance of consent, even if they hold these in parallel with principles about right sexual behaviour. That is simply not true about your side of the debate. Your best motives, however rightly or sincerely you may hold them, are not those of society as a whole and you know it. You can't win without the support of bigots. You can't win without making society more homophobic. Therefore you ought to concede.
This is simply not true.
On this issue I don't want to make society more anything.
I am in favour of civil partnerships and wrote to my MP actively encouraging this in the past. I'm all in favour of legal equality, I just think that it is confusing to call civil partnership marriage.
I'm asking for society's definition of marriage to be what society thinks it is. Now, if Orfeo is correct then it may well change in the future. If so I'm happy to live with that. But I'm still waiting for that process to work its way through. At the moment we do not have gay marriage whether that is mostly down to homophobia or a particular view of marriage I'm not sure. One thing is certain though - my voice is calling for the government to keep things as they are, so there is no call for homophobia to increase. You could say that my stance is not doing enough to deal with homophobia but it is disingenuous to suggest that I want it to increase.
Overall I find your view of the democratic process rather bizarre. Maybe I'm misreading you but it comes across as if you are saying that people who do not share your ideals should not be allowed to engage in the process.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Because it's change. And the government is only in favour of meaningless change for no reason. I believe the majority of popular opinion on most topics boils down to "Keep the noise down and let us live our lives in peace". And the government changes such things when it's noisier to keep them as they are than to change them.
Agreed.
Therefore telling one side to keep quiet so that the other side sounds noisier isn't much of an argument.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In Australia whenever this issue is discussed in the press it is very common for lots of comments (on line) in favour of gay marriage to be about what a mess marriage is these days. Now, I want to stress that I do not read this into it, but it would easy to say that a vote for marriage (by some) is a vote against heterosexual marriage. Again, I'm not saying this, I'm just pointing out that your noble desire for change based on good principle only is, at best, hopeless naive.
So some people are completely illogical (given that the creation of gay marriage won't do a single thing to invalidate or destroy straight marriages). I agree. What else is new?
I suppose that's one reason we don't have referendums on such things.
And I also agree that it's too much to hope that politicians won't constantly think of the political angle rather than the principle. That's arguably why we're in the current situation, because of some rather noisy lobby groups, particularly one that claims to speak for the Christian vote and keeps raising the spectre of Labor losing 'the Christian vote' over this. Mind you, I've also seen the opposite idea, that Labor can win back the vote it's losing to the Greens if it supports gay marriage.
I do think you have a point that Eliab's comment about 'who is on your side' wasn't very fair. Everyone gets a vote in the end, on questions where there is a vote. We don't have any kind of qualification that says the vote must be cast on the basis of articulated principle, or excluding people that are either misinformed or just too stupid to live.
Pity really... ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
The opponents of marriage for all are never silent for long
Forever digging...
They serve the real absence
Gay resourcefulness never fails to amaze and delight me !
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So some people are completely illogical (given that the creation of gay marriage won't do a single thing to invalidate or destroy straight marriages). I agree. What else is new?
I suppose that's one reason we don't have referendums on such things.
Agreed. I wasn't suggesting we have one, merely trying to illustrate how policy works in a democracy.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And I also agree that it's too much to hope that politicians won't constantly think of the political angle rather than the principle. That's arguably why we're in the current situation, because of some rather noisy lobby groups, particularly one that claims to speak for the Christian vote and keeps raising the spectre of Labor losing 'the Christian vote' over this. Mind you, I've also seen the opposite idea, that Labor can win back the vote it's losing to the Greens if it supports gay marriage.
That very well sums up the situation where I live. As a Church Minister I get constant pressure from the right wing lobby groups you are referring to. A lot of the time they are the worst kind of lobbying. On the other hand where I live is in a Labor strong hold which is really feeling the loss to the Greens. Having spoken to my Labor MP there is no doubt that he wants to appeal to Green voters on this issue. The area is complex - it used to be mostly Greek and Italian immigrants who, with their Orthodox and RC background, tend to be very conservative on this issue. Yet gentrification means lots of middle class Green voters. Any politician here is playing a game as to which group is the future.
While I may disagree with you on this issue Orfeo, I have to say that I think you very accurately, graciously and even-handedly describe the current situation here in Australia.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Everyone gets a vote in the end, on questions where there is a vote. We don't have any kind of qualification that says the vote must be cast on the basis of articulated principle, or excluding people that are either misinformed or just too stupid to live.
Pity really...
When I get into power one of my first reforms is going to be a stupid tax. Of course, by then opponents of same sex marriage may have to pay it.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I really don't follow where you are going with this.
I think that’s because you are talking more about motives and I am talking about principles.
I agree with you that any statute is passed (or not) because of a whole jumble of good and bad motives. But that’s not the end of the story. Once passed, a statute becomes part of an ongoing social, political and legal narrative, and the way that works in jurisdictions like the UK, the USA, Australia and many others is that judges and lawyers make sense of the words of the text by finding and applying principles. A judge does not take the confused and contradictory motives that led to the passage of a bill as being normative, but instead finds (invents, if you like) the principle that best explains how the new law is meant to work. That’s why I’ve made a big thing about principles – they make a difference.
An example – one area of law that’s developed in the UK in the last couple of decades is that of harassment. Harassment is notoriously hard to define (because it can consist of actions not offensive in themselves, done in a manner that makes them intimidating) and the UK law says, in pretty vague terms, that it means following a course of conduct that causes alarm or distress.
I once did a case where a husband sued his wife’s business partner for lending her money to buy a luxury house, thereby inducing her to leave him. He said, quite truthfully, that this conduct had caused him distress. It had, the evidence suggested, been done deliberately with that intention, and there was no suggestion that he had been a bad husband from whom the wife had needed rescue. Did he have a good claim or not?
The Court didn’t just look at the harassment law – the Judge went back forty years to the old, and now abolished, causes of action involving the inciting of spousal desertion and the harbouring of errant spouses. Under the old law this husband would have had a claim, and the Court would have assessed the financial value of the wife’s society and services and awarded that in damages. The Court’s judgment was that the harassment law ought not to be interpreted as restoring anything similar to that sort of claim. The principles that the new law enacted were not consistent with the revival of a quasi-property right in marriage. Therefore the husband, though he had certainly suffered distress, had not been harassed within the true meaning of the law. His claim failed.
The point is that no one could derive that (or any other) outcome from the text alone. The law did not say, in terms, whether those facts counted as harassment or not, and no similar case had ever been decided by the Courts under the new law to set a precedent. The Judge needed to find a narrative and principled account of UK law in which one or other ruling was a better fit. He didn’t need to consider the mixed motives needed to change the law, but he did need to ask from what principled position the law, as changed, now spoke.
That’s how the law works, and that’s why it is important to consider not just why you personally want to forbid gay marriage, or why I want to allow it, but what principled position the law will express if you or I get our way.
What it will not do is express your principles of fidelity to a Christian sexual ethic. Neither your jurisdiction nor mine has a legal narrative that can be understood as expressing that as the basis of legislation. The good motives for your position won’t make it into the law. The principled position that the law expresses will be that gay relationships are legally recognised as being different from straight ones with the same degree of commitment, that straights get to describe their closest bond in terms that most people would naturally choose, whereas gays get a bureaucratic phrase which pretty much no one would use to describe their household. The principle is that straight people’s vows are the real thing and gays have some sort of legal imitation.
On the other hand, if my position is successful, the principles that the law expresses are the good ones. I don’t deny that someone might support gay marriage for very bad motives, but it isn’t 'motives' that I’m talking about. The law won’t speak with those motives – it will speak from a principled position of recognised equality, as, it my opinion, it ought to.
quote:
I'm all in favour of legal equality, I just think that it is confusing to call civil partnership marriage.
You aren’t in favour of legal equality unless you are in favour of allowing gays to do what straights can legally do. That includes getting married to the consenting partner of their choice.
quote:
Overall I find your view of the democratic process rather bizarre. Maybe I'm misreading you but it comes across as if you are saying that people who do not share your ideals should not be allowed to engage in the process.
Well of course you’ve misread me, but it is quite a telling misreading. There is a difference between disapproval and prohibition.
In my opinion, you ought not to oppose gay marriage. By doing so you make gays less than equal in the eyes of the law. There are basically two motives for that- faith and prejudice. While I am entirely convinced that you are speaking out of a sincere faith, everyone knows that it is not the faith position which the law will give voice to, because the law is not founded on Christian sexual ethics and there is no social impetus to have it so. But you should to be allowed to express your view, and engage in the democratic process. I do thoroughly disapprove of your stated position – I think it is an immoral and hurtful one, and that as a Christian (and an intelligent and compassionate Christian as far as I can tell) you ought to know better. I don’t want to take away your vote.
I wish your side would make the same distinction. It would cost you nothing at all to say that in your view gay people ought not to have sexual relationships or marriages, but that they should be allowed to do so if they wish.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I think that’s because you are talking more about motives and I am talking about principles.
No, I was (trying to at least) talk about motives and principles.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The point is that no one could derive that (or any other) outcome from the text alone. The law did not say, in terms, whether those facts counted as harassment or not, and no similar case had ever been decided by the Courts under the new law to set a precedent. The Judge needed to find a narrative and principled account of UK law in which one or other ruling was a better fit. He didn’t need to consider the mixed motives needed to change the law, but he did need to ask from what principled position the law, as changed, now spoke.
That’s how the law works, and that’s why it is important to consider not just why you personally want to forbid gay marriage, or why I want to allow it, but what principled position the law will express if you or I get our way.
I don't get what difference this makes. I agree with you, but all you are saying is that we both have different principles.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What it will not do is express your principles of fidelity to a Christian sexual ethic. Neither your jurisdiction nor mine has a legal narrative that can be understood as expressing that as the basis of legislation. The good motives for your position won’t make it into the law.
That is true but neither here nor there. My principles on this issue come from my Christian sexual ethic. I have no other principles to guide me on this issue. If it wasn't for my Christian ethics I would not be opposed to gay marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
In my opinion, you ought not to oppose gay marriage. By doing so you make gays less than equal in the eyes of the law. There are basically two motives for that- faith and prejudice. While I am entirely convinced that you are speaking out of a sincere faith, everyone knows that it is not the faith position which the law will give voice to, because the law is not founded on Christian sexual ethics and there is no social impetus to have it so. But you should to be allowed to express your view, and engage in the democratic process. I do thoroughly disapprove of your stated position – I think it is an immoral and hurtful one, and that as a Christian (and an intelligent and compassionate Christian as far as I can tell) you ought to know better. I don’t want to take away your vote.
I hear this argument from secularists all the time and don't understand it. I do not expect or demand that anyone else accepts my Christian ethics. However, that is the sole reason why I take this stance on this issue. Are you suggesting that Christians should never engage in political issues based on their Christian principles, but only on principles that have no faith / religious basis?
(There is no religious / secular divide in my world view. Not that I want a theocracy just that I can only speak from a Christian world view.)
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I wish your side would make the same distinction. It would cost you nothing at all to say that in your view gay people ought not to have sexual relationships or marriages, but that they should be allowed to do so if they wish.
If you replaced the words 'or marriages' with 'or partnerships' then that would precisely express my position.
My opposition to gay marriage (as far as the state is concerned) is that I think that it is a category error. Rather like passing a law to declare squares round or the sky green. IngoB has made this point so many times on this thread that either you have been scrolling past him or I'm missing something important here.
If the government passed a law tomorrow declaring the sky green I'd shrug my shoulders and accept but I'd still be saying, "I think you're going to confuse a lot of kids with this."
Posted by cupbearer (# 16746) on
:
Oh dear; although I've lurked pretty much forever (10 years' worth of forever, anyway), I'm new to posting here, and I'm not sure if what I'm about to do is considered gauche. If it is, please extend to me Christian charity, admonish me kindly, and rest assured I will not repeat the offense.
I posted this in the 'One more step along the world I go...' thread, and I thought it was pertinent to the conversation here, as I have read through the thread and not seen the matter addressed directly. So I am going to quote myself-- hubris be damned-- and hope that I am not breaching Ship etiquette by doing so.
Forthwith, then.
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Lyn Featherstone MP said :
""The government is advancing equality for LGB (lesbian, gay and bisexual) people and ensuring freedom of religion for people of all faiths. No religious group will be forced to host a civil partnership registration, but for those who wish to do so this is an important step forward."
Well, at least someone is finally being honest about excluding the T (transgender) contingent from the equation; people do it all the time anyway, but usually while paying lip service to being inclusive, so it’s actually quite refreshing to hear someone be up front about not considering the ramifications for the T in LGBT.
I realize that this may be tangential to the specific focus of this thread, but it’s something that gets excluded from virtually every conversation about same sex-marriage, so I hope you’ll indulge me for a moment. The thing is, ‘same-sex marriage’ and ‘gay marriage’ are not interchangeable terms. The prohibition against same-sex marriage actually affects many heterosexual couples as well, in which one partner is transgender and is unable to change their gender on their legal documentation for whatever reason (rules on that vary widely from place to place). And there are many homosexual couples who are able to marry legally for the same reason.
This population may be a minority within a minority, but it’s still an issue for a large number of people—real people, who have names and faces and families. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the same conservatives who defend traditional marriage don’t know what to make of these situations. Let’s take a hypothetical; it’s simplistic, and reality is much more complicated, but this will do for my purposes. John was assigned female at birth, but has identified as male since he was a small child. He began transition in his teens, taking hormones which induced male puberty, and had sexual reassignment surgery in his early 20s. He now has both primary and secondary male sex characteristics. Because of where he lives, however, while he can change his name and possibly even his gender on his driver’s license, he cannot change either his name or his gender on his birth certificate. Now the question for the gatekeepers of traditional marriage becomes, Who would you allow John to marry? Even the staunchest conservative will say that a gay man is perfectly welcome to marry—so long as he marries a woman. (That’s a perfectly repugnant statement as far as I’m concerned, but it’s one we’ve all heard more times than we’d care to count.) But what if John wishes to marry a woman? Well, he was raised as female; surely that must make it a homosexual relationship, and therefore wrong. What if John wishes to marry a man? He is a man, and is perceived by others as a man; surely that must be a homosexual relationship. To people who see everything in black and white, anything they perceive as a shade of grey is maddening, and there is no way they can see someone who is transgender as anything other than homosexual. (This affects intersex people as well, of course; but I’m not addressing their specific issues here because I have no personal experience with them and as such won’t presume to be an expert, and because intersex people are often looked upon with a small amount of compassion because their situation is perceived to be an accident of birth.)
So there are many out there who would deny those of us in the transgender community, particularly those who have transitioned both socially and medically, the right to marry anyone at all. We’re used to being an afterthought even in parts of the LGBT community and all the more so elsewhere; but this is one area where it’s particularly galling to be pushed aside. It’s one thing to become a eunuch voluntarily for the kingdom of heaven; it’s quite another to be made one against one’s will because people don’t know what the hell to do with you otherwise.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As I recall discussing on the Ship in a completely different context, an apple is not an orange, but they are both fruit.
A gay civil union is not a marriage, but they are both relationships. This is not purely a word definition game. Only a man and a woman can procreate. Procreation is very important, both at the personal level and for the common good. If we end up redefining our language to obscure the difference, then this is simply a triumph of ideology over reality. All such triumphs are necessarily transient. There is no doubt in my mind that language will snap back to sanity eventually, even if it now ends up being enslaved to social agendas.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Which is to say that gay marriage is not the only variation on the theme of ‘marriage'. There isn't a single generally accepted essence.
The first statement is correct. The second one is false. As the very word "polygamy" (meaning "often married") indicates, the variation we are talking about there is how often one can be married. In condemning multiple marriages, people insist that a "proper" marriage is exclusive. They are precisely not in doubt that the other relationships of a polygamist could be a marriage. They do have (or at least: could have) the right essence in principle, but they come at the wrong time in practice: namely after one of the spouses already has contracted such a relationship. If the first wife wasn't around, the relationship to the second "wife" would be a marriage. This is entirely different from the situation with "gay marriages". Even the first such relationship would be immediately rejected by tradition, it truly has the wrong essence. Of course, for the Christian tradition there never was a doubt that polygamy consisted of actual marriages that were simply not up to the more exalted Christian standard of exclusivity, as explicitly stated in scripture by Christ Himself. So if we are talking the tradition most relevant to us, then the situation is unequivocal.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
For example, my legs are just as obviously ordered to locomotion as my penis is to procreation. I wouldn't have legs if my species did not use such contrivances to get from A to B efficiently. But if I go to the gym, and see a room full of people on treadmills, going through the motions of running in order to derive a secondary benefit (fitness) it would never occur to me that I had come upon a den of evildoers abusing their locomotive faculty. Approximately no one, not Catholics and not anyone else, thinks that running machines are sinful.
If you were a wildebeest, and if you were getting rid of your urge to migrate on a treadmill, then you might have a point. Natural moral law relies on reasonably identifying the essential good of things, it's not a simple formulaic approach. The workings of reason are not so easy to press in an algorithm. I'm analyzing sex under the assumption that it is of moral relevance. You cannot then simply use that same sort of analysis for just anything. That sex is moral relevance is close to axiomatic for reason I would say, though one can motivate it a bit from the obvious importance this has to the very existence of mankind.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Widespread homophobia does not justify legal discrimination, any more than widespread racism would justify apartheid. Bigotry is not a moral principle. The majority in this instance cannot give a good principled reason to stop gays from marrying.
I hope you are aware that this is pure natural moral law reasoning. You are appealing to a "higher authority" here, one that goes beyond whatever society has currently decided is right. Aside from God, only nature can supply such higher moral ground. You are arguing from a conception of the essential good of people here, which can be used to critique law no matter how accepted. And you are claiming that this can be determined by reason, that you can argue from the human "is" to its "ought".
This is of course always the case. When pressed hard, all other conceptions of moral law collapse to an appeal to natural moral law. It is the only firm place to stand (aside from Divine revelation, if one believes). The problem is that natural moral law, like every attempt to analyze the nature of things with reason, is far from trivial. But it seems "intuitive". It's a bit like cosmology. Somehow everybody has an idea about how the universe comes about, to the despair of cosmologists...
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If the exclusive primary function of sex were indeed procreation then humans would be more like dogs. Only really ready for sex when they were fertile - and displaying that fertility clearly and obviously to all around them. As dogs do on heat. But humans don't. You can't look at a human woman even without clothes and tell immediately if she's fertile. What symptoms there are are naturally disguised and played down rather than advertised.
Well spotted, indeed, humans are nearly unique in that. Evolutionary thinking concerning this issue, best I know, is that it is related to the upbringing of children. Humans are also nearly unique there, namely in the fact that humans do not become independently functional till the age of 6-8 years or so. In many animals it is rather days, if not minutes, till the newborn can "keep up with adults". Under such circumstances, it becomes very important to keep the father around constantly as support. Perhaps nowadays single mums have a fair chance of raising their offspring well, but this certainly wasn't the case in the past. Hidden fertility and the (theoretical... ) almost constant availability for sex of women hence evolved as big motivators for men to stick around and help raise their young over many years. This modern evolutionary take of course fits perfectly into RC teaching, which does not see marriage as mainly for generating offspring, but also for raising it.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Once I have bought a tool, I barely give a sparrow's fart what the toolmaker intended it for.
Except that you are not really a tool user in this analogy. You are the tool. A conscious one, which makes it all a bit strange. It's like knife asking itself "What am I good for?" If the answer it comes up with is "splitting rock", we can tell that knife validly that it is wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The Council of Trent was a naked reactionary power grab as a part of the counter-reformation that amongst other things sought to change marriage from being a social action blessed by the church to a religious one.
Whether this is true or not, it is irrelevant. My point was that all "social action" that may have come before shared the very same idea about the essence of marriage, which I did spell out explicitly. You can twist and turn all you like, there is just no historical doubt possible that "gay marriage" is a very recent concept.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No one denies that arithmetic applies.
I'm glad we have clarified that, finally.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"Under no circumstances can they be approved." Which, by the plain meaning of the text says that if unambiguous divine revalation said they were to go ahead they still couldn't be approved.
Nonsense. This is saying that there are no external (human!) circumstances that may allow approving this, even if those are good themselves, i.e., this is to be considered as an intrinsic evil. For example, take the argument that certain regulations about insurance currently applying to marriage should apply to gay relationships. Maybe it would indeed be good if these regulations would apply. Nevertheless it is not licit to approve of gay relationships as marriage in order to make them apply. (Which is not to say that a different way cannot be sought.) That's the point.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But instead of fighting for equality, you want the pro-gay marriage lobby to strip everyone of legal marriages?
Sorry, this is very confusing. What do you seek from the state? Are you saying that people must not be deprived from having a document that has the word "marriage" on it? Fine, then give those civil unions that are between man and woman a document that says "marriage" on top. Whereas everybody else gets a "civil union" (or whatever) document. Otherwise let the state handle this the same, i.e., marriage is - as far as the state is concerned - just a synonym to be used for traditional reasons when a man and a woman are concerned.
Personally I don't think that this is necessary. If a man and a woman are getting a document with "civil union" on top, they will still say to each other and the rest of the world that they got married. But if you think that you must pay respect to tradition this way, then be my guest.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Read this and get back to me.
As sad as this is, it clearly has nothing to do with privileging biological over homosexual relationships.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You make the case that people who had previously been married should now not be married.
A marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I don't see how new rules concerning relationships could "un-marry" anyone. At worst, the state could stop recognizing some marriages. But of course I have suggested nothing along those lines.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Why do you hate marriage and seek to abolish the marraiges of others?
I'm perfectly fine with keeping everything as it was. But you want to establish a blatant lie as common practice. You want to do exactly what I propose, namely have the state establish general "recognized relationships" norm. Except you want to call it "marriage", so that everybody who is more traditional gets to pretend that all is as it was. But that's just nonsense. "Under the hood" there would be a complete change of principle. This is really an insulting tactic, which assumes that people are so shallow as to only care about the word "marriage", rather than about its meaning.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
You can't win without the support of bigots. You can't win without making society more homophobic. Therefore you ought to concede.
Firstly, this is unproven assertion. Secondly, moral principle is not to be traded on the utilitarian market. That's why it is principle.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I see - so a LITTLE big of masturbation is OK - say no more than twice daily! More, is too much (well, it is at my age.)
No. Masturbation is an abuse, not "too much of a good thing". The allowed number is zero.
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
John was assigned female at birth, but has identified as male since he was a small child. He began transition in his teens, taking hormones which induced male puberty, and had sexual reassignment surgery in his early 20s. He now has both primary and secondary male sex characteristics. Because of where he lives, however, while he can change his name and possibly even his gender on his driver’s license, he cannot change either his name or his gender on his birth certificate. Now the question for the gatekeepers of traditional marriage becomes, Who would you allow John to marry?
This case presents no difficulty at all to the "gatekeepers of traditional marriage". "John" is a woman. That modern society has decided to pander to her mental illness is exceedingly regrettable, but does not change her gender. Hence "John" can marry a man, but not a woman.
Posted by cupbearer (# 16746) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
John was assigned female at birth, but has identified as male since he was a small child. He began transition in his teens, taking hormones which induced male puberty, and had sexual reassignment surgery in his early 20s. He now has both primary and secondary male sex characteristics. Because of where he lives, however, while he can change his name and possibly even his gender on his driver’s license, he cannot change either his name or his gender on his birth certificate. Now the question for the gatekeepers of traditional marriage becomes, Who would you allow John to marry?
This case presents no difficulty at all to the "gatekeepers of traditional marriage". "John" is a woman. That modern society has decided to pander to her mental illness is exceedingly regrettable, but does not change her gender. Hence "John" can marry a man, but not a woman.
Ah, well. Since I'm evidently mentally ill, you'd better take everything I say from now on with a grain of salt, then.
I'm going to look awfully bad for your cause getting married in a beard and a suit to another gentleman, though.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Slight tangent of the pedantic variety - the use of tools analogy fails when the rock is a piece of shale, suspected of harbouring a fossil, making the best tool for the job may well be some sort of knife, certainly a blade which can prise off layers gently. Certainly not one's best kitchen knife, but an old knife or a penknife could do the job.
Being able to adapt existing tools for a variety of tasks is one way we have developed so many tools, and are not stuck with flint handaxes.
It may be possible to build a more generous analogy on that, if one is so inclined.
Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QB]... I just think that it is confusing to call civil partnership marriage. ...
[/qb/]
You keep saying that, but you never say what exactly is so confusing for you. So I'll ask again: what is this horrible confusion you speak of? You're not sure whether to get His/His, Hers/His, or Hers/Hers towel sets for the happy couple? OliviaG
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
I'm taking a moment out of an ethics paper I'm behind on under the rationale that this is actually related to the topic of the book assigned:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I hear this argument from secularists all the time and don't understand it. I do not expect or demand that anyone else accepts my Christian ethics. However, that is the sole reason why I take this stance on this issue. Are you suggesting that Christians should never engage in political issues based on their Christian principles, but only on principles that have no faith / religious basis?
That's kind of the problem, though. SSM isn't really a matter of ethics. Ethics has to do with the second part of the Summary of the Law, and gays who form monogamous, lifelong, child-rearing unions are not defrauding, depriving, or injuring their neighbours any more than are heterosexuals who do the same. Rather, it is God who is supposed to be the vexed in some abstract way by their union, (though why a genderless God's reaction to an action should be contingent, and even diametrically opposite, based on the gender of the actors is unclear). But in any case, the objection is subjective (based on the actors) and not one of objective ethics intrinsic to the action(or else we would prohibit all marriages).
In one breath you say you don't expect others to accept your version of Christian ethics, but in the next you say you that you are in favour of compelling them to abide by it. As a seminarian, I would be the last to say that Christians shouldn't bring a Biblical perspective to the issues. But as a pre-Law undergrad I also know that if there isn't a rationale in the public interest for a law - not a rationale based in Holy Writ but one applicable to all the citizenry - you can't make a law to appease one group by binding the behaviour of others. Or else imposing your Christian ethics on the state is exactly what you're doing.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This case presents no difficulty at all to the "gatekeepers of traditional marriage". "John" is a woman. That modern society has decided to pander to her mental illness is exceedingly regrettable, but does not change her gender. Hence "John" can marry a man, but not a woman.
Ah, well. Since I'm evidently mentally ill, you'd better take everything I say from now on with a grain of salt, then.
I'm going to look awfully bad for your cause getting married in a beard and a suit to another gentleman, though.
Ingo's pet late antique/medieval pseudoscience where a bunch of people (usually celibate chaps) who have prejudged the issue from the way they read the Bible get to play at guessing the 'essential purpose' of nature trumps any damage done to your life. Sorry about that.
L
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well spotted, indeed, humans are nearly unique in that. Evolutionary thinking concerning this issue, best I know, is that it is related to the upbringing of children. Humans are also nearly unique there, namely in the fact that humans do not become independently functional till the age of 6-8 years or so. In many animals it is rather days, if not minutes, till the newborn can "keep up with adults". Under such circumstances, it becomes very important to keep the father around constantly as support. Perhaps nowadays single mums have a fair chance of raising their offspring well, but this certainly wasn't the case in the past. Hidden fertility and the (theoretical... ) almost constant availability for sex of women hence evolved as big motivators for men to stick around and help raise their young over many years. This modern evolutionary take of course fits perfectly into RC teaching, which does not see marriage as mainly for generating offspring, but also for raising it.
And this sort of reasoning is why I can not take Roman Catholic teaching on their so-called moral law seriously. There is a significant difference between direct physical procreation and the tightening of relationships to raise children - and the two are in tension. And if the Roman Catholic Church actualy believed in Natural Moral Law rather than merely paid lip service to it then it would accept that for instance gay couples wanting to adopt and raise children were entirely in line with this second social function of sex under natural law. However I believe that natural law is never treated as a primary tool by the RCC.
quote:
Except that you are not really a tool user in this analogy. You are the tool. A conscious one, which makes it all a bit strange. It's like knife asking itself "What am I good for?" If the answer it comes up with is "splitting rock", we can tell that knife validly that it is wrong.
Unless the knife is really good at splitting rock - and not much good at any of the other things a knife is meant to be good for. At that point, we, the other tools, should conclude that we are the ones who have got it wrong and apparently there is a way of making knives for splitting rock.
quote:
Nonsense. This is saying that there are no external (human!) circumstances that may allow approving this, even if those are good themselves, i.e., this is to be considered as an intrinsic evil.
OK. Everything except direct divine revalation mean that you are not open to changing or even seeing the light in such matters.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
But instead of fighting for equality, you want the pro-gay marriage lobby to strip everyone of legal marriages?
Sorry, this is very confusing. What do you seek from the state?
Marriage is a state mandated legal institution however much the Roman Catholic Church seeks to usurp it. You are asking the pro gay marriage lobby to quite literally destroy the institution of legal marriage. And then you have the sheer nerve to claim that this would be better tactics than appealing for equality.
quote:
Firstly, this is unproven assertion. Secondly, moral principle is not to be traded on the utilitarian market. That's why it is principle.
Fine. Our moral principles against yours. Equality and looking for the light, the beauty, and the love in people vs Tradition and Just So Stories.
quote:
This case presents no difficulty at all to the "gatekeepers of traditional marriage". "John" is a woman. That modern society has decided to pander to her mental illness is exceedingly regrettable, but does not change her gender. Hence "John" can marry a man, but not a woman.
And it presents no difficulty at all to the "gatekeepers of traditional marriage" because they are a bunch of transphobic bigots. I'd deal further with you in hell if I wasn't under the weather (and may well if no one's got there first).
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
That’s how the law works, and that’s why it is important to consider not just why you personally want to forbid gay marriage, or why I want to allow it, but what principled position the law will express if you or I get our way.
I don't get what difference this makes. I agree with you, but all you are saying is that we both have different principles.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
What it will not do is express your principles of fidelity to a Christian sexual ethic. Neither your jurisdiction nor mine has a legal narrative that can be understood as expressing that as the basis of legislation. The good motives for your position won’t make it into the law.
That is true but neither here nor there.
Maybe not, but it is the main point I wish to make.
The law cannot, with integrity, ban gay marriage from your principles, because the law isn’t based on Christian principles. And I want the law to speak with integrity. I could live with a law that works on secular principles. Because I’m a Christian, I could personally live with a law founded on Christian principles (though I would doubt society’s entitlement to impose such a law on non-Christians). What I absolutely do not want, what, for me, would stink to heaven of bigotry and hate, is a law which generally imposes secular standards on sexual behaviour but which makes an exception for the gays. There is no integrity or honour in that at all.
quote:
My opposition to gay marriage (as far as the state is concerned) is that I think that it is a category error. Rather like passing a law to declare squares round or the sky green. IngoB has made this point so many times on this thread that either you have been scrolling past him or I'm missing something important here.
I haven’t engaged much with that point because I don’t have much of an issue with it. So you and IngoB and lots of other people have a definition of marriage that says “one man plus one woman”? Fine. You are welcome to that definition. I don’t mind.
It ought to be obvious that other definitions are possible, and that there are variants even within the opposite-sex-only. IngoB’s definition includes “open to procreation”, which I don’t expect all that many non-Catholics would even understand, much less accept.
And I accept, of course, that the word "marriage" has until recently, only applied to opposite sex pairings. Allowing same-sex couples to "marry" extends the definition. I do think that there is at the very least a serious question about the permissibility of homosexuality in Christian ethics, and sound Christian reasons for not being willing to extend Christian marriage so far. However since "marriage" for me is not an exclusively Christian word, I am perfectly happy to amend my definition of the word marriage to include same-sex couples.
I get that you have a different definition of marriage to me. I get that you would, all else being equal, prefer that society uses your definition rather than another. What I really don’t get is why you are prepared to hurt people to achieve that result. That I don’t understand at all.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
So I am going to quote myself-- hubris be damned-- and hope that I am not breaching Ship etiquette by doing so.
Welcome cupbearer - hubris was the purpose for which the ship was invented!
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
what is this horrible confusion you speak of?
I may be wrong, but at least I'm consistent.
The confusion stems from my definition of marriage. One essential (but not comprehensive) aspect of marriage is the intent of procreation. I think God intended the family unit to be based around a mother and father.
I have no concerns that gay parents are bad people that will teach their kids evil things but I do think that the primary way children learn how to relate to the 'other' is through their parents.
In short I think there are two issues in civil law that are being put together:
1. Recognising gay partnerships - which I'm all in favour of ... via civil partnerships.
2. Recognising gay adoption etc. - which I'm not keen on for reasons above.
However, I think by calling for gay marriage those two issues are being conflated.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LQ:
In one breath you say you don't expect others to accept your version of Christian ethics, but in the next you say you that you are in favour of compelling them to abide by it. As a seminarian, I would be the last to say that Christians shouldn't bring a Biblical perspective to the issues. But as a pre-Law undergrad I also know that if there isn't a rationale in the public interest for a law - not a rationale based in Holy Writ but one applicable to all the citizenry - you can't make a law to appease one group by binding the behaviour of others. Or else imposing your Christian ethics on the state is exactly what you're doing.
1. As a Christian my faith informs my position on this issue.
2. As a citizen of a democracy have both a right and a responsibility to input into the government on matters of society.
I'm surprised that you cannot see the distinction here. As Eliab seems to have conceded, exactly how I've come to that position is not directly relevant - or rather it is directly relevant for my own personal morality but not directly relevant to formation of policy. I'm not asking people to accept my Christian ethics, I'm putting my 5 cents into the public debate as to what constitutes marriage.
Everyone relies on their presuppositions to come up with a definition of marriage - Christian, Muslim or Atheist. None of them would get anywhere if they had to get the rest of society to accept their world view before they could engage in political debate.
(See IngoB's comments about natural law. I have a mental picture of a 19th century midwestern town with a sign saying, "All new comers must check their religious ethics in at the saloon upon arrival.")
However, if my world view is becoming less common it is quite likely that fewer people are going to come to the same conclusions as me. Hence my view is less likely to win out in a democracy. That is not a reason for me to stop engaging though.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. Recognising gay adoption etc. - which I'm not keen on for reasons above.
And yet, last time I checked, gay couples made significantly better than average parents. This, I believe, is because when there's a pregnant gay couple there are no accidental children. So only the couples that want them get them.
By objecting to recognising gay adoption, you are quite literally claiming that gay couples are such bad parents that state foster care systems and parents who don't want children are better than loving couples who genuinely want children. Is this really what you mean? And if so can you justify it?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just to give Johnny something to disagree with, I'll offer "The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Lesbian Families" from this weekend's Globe&Mail.
quote:
A series of studies in Canada and elsewhere over the past decade has found that the children of lesbians aren't just well-adjusted – they excel. On average, kids with two moms seem to be more confident and less aggressive than those raised by a mom and a dad. They are open-minded, affectionate and less susceptible to anxiety and depression.
There isn't a large enough sample of male couples parenting to give a useful result yet.
But the results are consistent with anecdotal reporting I've seen several times over the recent years.
Of course, most of the parenting suggestions would actually apply to whatever gender the parent might be.
The kids with the highest likelihood of troubles are those in fostering and "care" situations, with single parenting the next on the list (and don't get excited that I'm dissing single parents - they just have a much more difficult time - hence the note in the article about creating a village)
[ 06. November 2011, 22:53: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
As I recall discussing on the Ship in a completely different context, an apple is not an orange, but they are both fruit.
A gay civil union is not a marriage, but they are both relationships. This is not purely a word definition game. Only a man and a woman can procreate. Procreation is very important, both at the personal level and for the common good.
And yet, I'm still looking for the spot in the marriage laws where they agree with you that procreation is what marriage is all about. However much that's the way YOU want the word 'marriage' to be defined and used, it simply isn't.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
One essential (but not comprehensive) aspect of marriage is the intent of procreation.
Then you would agree with IngoB, I take it, that a proportion of heterosexual marriages are invalid?
There has already been at least one heterosexual poster on this thread who indicated that they and their spouse married with no intent of having children. The law of the land was perfectly happy with that and considers the marriage valid.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm surprised that you cannot see the distinction here. As Eliab seems to have conceded, exactly how I've come to that position is not directly relevant - or rather it is directly relevant for my own personal morality but not directly relevant to formation of policy. I'm not asking people to accept my Christian ethics, I'm putting my 5 cents into the public debate as to what constitutes marriage.
Well, that's the distinction between a secular state and a theocracy. You can wholeheartedly believe that driving cars on the Sabbath is wrong, but unless you live in a theocracy (and, more importantly, a theocracy based on your religion) you can't expect the government to ban the practice without a secular reason for doing so. Once you start making laws with no justification beyond religious teachings, you've crossed into theocratic territory.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
By objecting to recognising gay adoption, you are quite literally claiming that gay couples are such bad parents that state foster care systems and parents who don't want children are better than loving couples who genuinely want children. Is this really what you mean? And if so can you justify it?
Bad implies a moral judgement. I have no evidence that gay couples make bad parents - in fact my experience here in Sydney suggests the opposite.
As I said earlier, my objection is not that I think they will teach their kids the wrong things (as opposed to heterosexual parents) but that biologically they cannot model a heterosexual marriage.
Just as I think marriage involves the intent of having children so I think that a key aspect of parenting is modelling how to reproduce. (No jokes about the birds and bees please). I don't mean sex ed, I mean modelling right relationships between men and women with a goal to having and rearing children. Gay couples biologically cannot do that. That is not a moral problem but a biological one.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then you would agree with IngoB, I take it, that a proportion of heterosexual marriages are invalid?
Good question.
I haven't thought about it enough to give a clear answer.
Off the cuff my response would be that I wouldn't use the term invalid but I would see them a deficient marriages in some sense.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
By objecting to recognising gay adoption, you are quite literally claiming that gay couples are such bad parents that state foster care systems and parents who don't want children are better than loving couples who genuinely want children. Is this really what you mean? And if so can you justify it?
Bad implies a moral judgement. I have no evidence that gay couples make bad parents - in fact my experience here in Sydney suggests the opposite.
As I said earlier, my objection is not that I think they will teach their kids the wrong things (as opposed to heterosexual parents) but that biologically they cannot model a heterosexual marriage.
Just as I think marriage involves the intent of having children so I think that a key aspect of parenting is modelling how to reproduce. (No jokes about the birds and bees please). I don't mean sex ed, I mean modelling right relationships between men and women with a goal to having and rearing children. Gay couples biologically cannot do that. That is not a moral problem but a biological one.
I'm puzzled as to why the only 'right' relationships between men and women are the ones where sex is occurring between the man and the woman??
Seriously. I have LOTS of relationships with women. They just don't involve sex. And I imagine that the vast majority of your interactions with women don't involve sex either.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Addendum because the phone rang just as I was about to edit:
I mean, if you say this ISN'T about sex ed, I don't see why there's a problem with the modelling. Unless you think that what's required is a display of affection that is sexual in nature - kissing and cuddling and so on in front of the children - without going 'all the way'.
Although, I'm then rather at a loss to understand how heterosexual displays of affection are different to homosexual displays of affection. When it comes to kisses and cuddles and everything BUT going all the way, it looks exactly the same to me. I suppose I can't fondle a man's breasts...
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, that's the distinction between a secular state and a theocracy. You can wholeheartedly believe that driving cars on the Sabbath is wrong, but unless you live in a theocracy (and, more importantly, a theocracy based on your religion) you can't expect the government to ban the practice without a secular reason for doing so. Once you start making laws with no justification beyond religious teachings, you've crossed into theocratic territory.
I agree with your definition in principle but I'm not sure that your religious / secular reason distinction is as clear cut as you make out.
I'm claiming the following:
1. As a Christian, I think marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, with a key aspect being for the intention of children.
2. My religious convictions then inform my secular definition of marriage, which is that, for the good of society, western culture has traditionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman as the right context to bring up children.
It would be a theocracy if I was expecting people to accept point 1, but I'm not. Point 2 may be informed by my religious principles but it is still a secular definition.
(As far as the studies about gay parenting go I'm not sure what they really demonstrate - although I suppose I would say that! My questions concern the long term impact on society of having gay couples as the centre nuclear families. It is not about gay couples passing on bad morals. Therefore I'd be more interested in a study that covered several generations. The bigger question is over what constitutes good parenting! Within my church, which obviously consists of a group who are mostly pretty conservative on marriage there is a huge spectrum on opinions about parenting. If even a relatively small and narrow set can't agree on what makes a good parent I'm rather puzzled as to how a study can confidently test the right qualities. And again, I freely concede that "I would say that!")
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm puzzled as to why the only 'right' relationships between men and women are the ones where sex is occurring between the man and the woman??
The context was parenting.
I said that the primary way children learn to relate to members of the opposite sex is by watching their mum and dad.
As they grow older that changes.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm puzzled as to why the only 'right' relationships between men and women are the ones where sex is occurring between the man and the woman??
The context was parenting.
I said that the primary way children learn to relate to members of the opposite sex is by watching their mum and dad.
As they grow older that changes.
I would say the primary way that children learn to relate to PEOPLE, full stop, is by watching their parents and learning from them. I'm not sure why in most contexts you would relate differently to people based on their gender. I think it's quite possible that you might relate people differently based on whether you are sexually attracted, but that's simply not the same thing.
Has it occurred to you that I managed, as a homosexual, to learn all sorts of things about relationships from my heterosexual parents? That's one of the things I always find a bit odd about this. Apparently there's no problem with gay children being raised by straight parents, but turn it around the other way and suddenly there's a problem?
I suppose it would have been better for me if I was farmed out to a couple of gay dads who could adopt me and give me proper role modelling, but sadly I had to make do with straight parents.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
By objecting to recognising gay adoption, you are quite literally claiming that gay couples are such bad parents that state foster care systems and parents who don't want children are better than loving couples who genuinely want children. Is this really what you mean? And if so can you justify it?
Bad implies a moral judgement.
No it doesn't. When I say my sister is a bad basketball player that isn't a moral judgement at all.
quote:
I have no evidence that gay couples make bad parents - in fact my experience here in Sydney suggests the opposite.
As I said earlier, my objection is not that I think they will teach their kids the wrong things (as opposed to heterosexual parents) but that biologically they cannot model a heterosexual marriage.
Just as I think marriage involves the intent of having children so I think that a key aspect of parenting is modelling how to reproduce. (No jokes about the birds and bees please). I don't mean sex ed, I mean modelling right relationships between men and women with a goal to having and rearing children. Gay couples biologically cannot do that. That is not a moral problem but a biological one.
I have a simple policy on moral issues. When your morals are ruining peoples lives or leading to their deaths then it is time to rethink them. And let's see how even if we accept your premise that there are things a gay couple will not model your morality will do.
When children need adoption there is normally a damn good reason. And there are regrettably more kids that need adoption than people adopting (especially if you go abroad or are prepared for children to look different - I believe that WASP children in affluent countries get snapped up fast). So you have children without parents and would-be parents without children. And adoption bringing the two together. But with banning gay adoption, you have fewer that can be brought together so you have more unparented children.
In short, because of your morals, kids who would otherwise get decent although not perfect adoptive parents won't get parents at all. That is the consequence of your objections to gay adoption. Parenting is important, as I'm sure you'll agree. And you are costing kids the chance to have parents just because they don't meet one point on the standards you want for them; and a point that is neither malicious nor directly harmful. For me that would be deep into the "rethink my morals" territory.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Then you would agree with IngoB, I take it, that a proportion of heterosexual marriages are invalid?
Good question.
I haven't thought about it enough to give a clear answer.
Off the cuff my response would be that I wouldn't use the term invalid but I would see them a deficient marriages in some sense.
Although for whatever reason, objections to [inter-racial / inter-faith / childless / post-divorce / fourth and subsequent / whatever] marriages haven't usually resulted in calls to tear down the main body of family law to deal with the problem of these "not real marriages". Most religious people can manage to juggle the idea that even if the state recognizes [inter-racial / inter-faith / childless / post-divorce / fourth and subsequent / whatever] marriages, they aren't "real" marriages in the eyes of God, but for some reason they can't make the same distinction for same-sex marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Well, that's the distinction between a secular state and a theocracy. You can wholeheartedly believe that driving cars on the Sabbath is wrong, but unless you live in a theocracy (and, more importantly, a theocracy based on your religion) you can't expect the government to ban the practice without a secular reason for doing so. Once you start making laws with no justification beyond religious teachings, you've crossed into theocratic territory.
I agree with your definition in principle but I'm not sure that your religious / secular reason distinction is as clear cut as you make out.
I'm claiming the following:
1. As a Christian, I think marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, with a key aspect being for the intention of children.
2. My religious convictions then inform my secular definition of marriage, which is that, for the good of society, western culture has traditionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman as the right context to bring up children.
It would be a theocracy if I was expecting people to accept point 1, but I'm not. Point 2 may be informed by my religious principles but it is still a secular definition.
The problem with that analysis is that as soon as you start adding in concepts like "the good of society", you've started applying secular standards. "The good of society" is something that does not necessarily have to be evaluated from the perspective of a particular brand of Christianity. (Unless you narrowly define society to be "good" only if it conforms to your particular brand of religion, in which case we're back at theocracy.) If you want to make the case that same-sex marriage (and same-sex parenting) is more harmful to society than leaving same-sex couples in legal limbo or orphans as wards of the state, that's a very different argument than saying those things should be illegal because they make Baby Jesus cry (or however you want to phrase it).
As far as children being raised by same-sex couples, it should be noted that a good number of such children are actually being raised by a biological parent. These children are the products of either prior, opposite-sex relationships, or lesbian couples who have the ability to gestate their own kids with the proper starting materials. If you maintain that parenting by same-sex couples is harmful, either to the children or to some larger concept of "society", doesn't it follow that the custody of any children in such a situation should be reassigned to a heterosexual caregiver, no matter how flawed?
Posted by cupbearer (# 16746) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This case presents no difficulty at all to the "gatekeepers of traditional marriage". "John" is a woman. That modern society has decided to pander to her mental illness is exceedingly regrettable, but does not change her gender. Hence "John" can marry a man, but not a woman.
You know, I chose not to address IngoB’s comment further yesterday, because I was annoyed by it and I make it a policy not to engage when I am annoyed. I am, however, no longer annoyed, and have had a chance to ponder it at length.
IngoB made the comment that transgender people are mentally ill, and implied that they are therefore dismissible. I don’t know whether IngoB intended to include me under that umbrella—I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I am transgender myself, but I’m perfectly willing to operate under the assumption that it was not meant as a personal attack—but she effectively placed me there whether I like it or not. The thing is, she’s right. I am mentally ill. I have been diagnosed with clinical depression and anxiety, both of which are natural responses to people constantly questioning my right to exist and to function as a member of society with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, as well as to the dysphoria and emotional distress caused by the disparity between my sex and my gender. But I’m hardly the only one with those diagnoses, and I’m well aware that there are a number of people on this board who suffer from them as well, for all sorts of reasons or for no discernible reason at all. Using ‘mental illness’ as a slight and as a means to discriminate against or to dismiss anyone is really an appallingly unfortunate move, and it betrays a lack of understanding of and engagement with the dialogue about how mental illness is perceived and dealt with in our society. It’s an interesting subject, and I would encourage anyone who hasn’t given thought to the ways in which stigma against mental illness permeates all levels of society to look into it.
Now, it’s possible that IngoB was referring to the fact that Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is a diagnosis contained within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); again, I don’t want to infer that her argument was any more negative than she intended it to be. And it is in fact the case that GID is in the DSM. There has been a great deal of controversy as to whether it ought to persist as a psychiatric diagnosis. However, the bottom line is that it is the dysphoria and discomfort caused by gender incongruity that is at the heart of the diagnosis; the DSM is very clear that one of the primary hallmarks distinguishing a disorder—any disorder—is the extent to which it impairs one’s quality of life and ability to function at an optimal level. So it is not the gender incongruity itself that is the problem, but the anxiety and distress that result from the incongruity. The transgender community itself has actually lobbied to keep GID in the DSM, because doing so ensures that we can continue to receive medical and psychological help regarding our issues. We, and our doctors and counsellors, do not consider being transgender to be a psychiatric disorder in and of itself, and we recognize that by keeping it on the books as one we risk misunderstanding and opposition; but many of us also consider it the lesser of two evils, as the alternative would be losing, at least temporarily, all recourse to physical or psychological treatment. Until there is a system to replace the current one, transgender people would be left in a terrible spot were the diagnosis to be done away with entirely.
Lastly, to be honest, as I gained distance from the comment yesterday, I had to laugh, and I’d like to thank IngoB for that. I pondered the fact that so many Christians, especially it seems Catholics (which is my own tradition), do consider trans folk to be mentally ill. Now, please don’t think I’m mocking anyone’s beliefs, because I share them too, but—it occurred to me that anyone who believes in the virgin birth; that someone rose from the dead; in invisible beings either protecting them from harm or attempting to drive them to it; that bread and wine are actual flesh and blood; and that holding these beliefs constitutes an obligation to implement them politically… well. They’d better be cautious about who they go around calling mentally ill. Glass houses, stones, etc.
The irony kept me giggling all afternoon. Thanks, IngoB.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
What Cupbearer said - I couldn't phrase it better.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This case presents no difficulty at all to the "gatekeepers of traditional marriage". "John" is a woman. That modern society has decided to pander to her mental illness is exceedingly regrettable, but does not change her gender. Hence "John" can marry a man, but not a woman.
You know, I chose not to address IngoB’s comment further yesterday, because I was annoyed by it and I make it a policy not to engage when I am annoyed. I am, however, no longer annoyed, and have had a chance to ponder it at length.
IngoB made the comment that transgender people are mentally ill, and implied that they are therefore dismissible. I don’t know whether IngoB intended to include me under that umbrella—I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I am transgender myself, but I’m perfectly willing to operate under the assumption that it was not meant as a personal attack—but she effectively placed me there whether I like it or not. The thing is, she’s right. I am mentally ill. I have been diagnosed with clinical depression and anxiety, both of which are natural responses to people constantly questioning my right to exist and to function as a member of society with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, as well as to the dysphoria and emotional distress caused by the disparity between my sex and my gender. But I’m hardly the only one with those diagnoses, and I’m well aware that there are a number of people on this board who suffer from them as well, for all sorts of reasons or for no discernible reason at all. Using ‘mental illness’ as a slight and as a means to discriminate against or to dismiss anyone is really an appallingly unfortunate move, and it betrays a lack of understanding of and engagement with the dialogue about how mental illness is perceived and dealt with in our society. It’s an interesting subject, and I would encourage anyone who hasn’t given thought to the ways in which stigma against mental illness permeates all levels of society to look into it.
Now, it’s possible that IngoB was referring to the fact that Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is a diagnosis contained within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); again, I don’t want to infer that her argument was any more negative than she intended it to be. And it is in fact the case that GID is in the DSM. There has been a great deal of controversy as to whether it ought to persist as a psychiatric diagnosis. However, the bottom line is that it is the dysphoria and discomfort caused by gender incongruity that is at the heart of the diagnosis; the DSM is very clear that one of the primary hallmarks distinguishing a disorder—any disorder—is the extent to which it impairs one’s quality of life and ability to function at an optimal level. So it is not the gender incongruity itself that is the problem, but the anxiety and distress that result from the incongruity. The transgender community itself has actually lobbied to keep GID in the DSM, because doing so ensures that we can continue to receive medical and psychological help regarding our issues. We, and our doctors and counsellors, do not consider being transgender to be a psychiatric disorder in and of itself, and we recognize that by keeping it on the books as one we risk misunderstanding and opposition; but many of us also consider it the lesser of two evils, as the alternative would be losing, at least temporarily, all recourse to physical or psychological treatment. Until there is a system to replace the current one, transgender people would be left in a terrible spot were the diagnosis to be done away with entirely.
Lastly, to be honest, as I gained distance from the comment yesterday, I had to laugh, and I’d like to thank IngoB for that. I pondered the fact that so many Christians, especially it seems Catholics (which is my own tradition), do consider trans folk to be mentally ill. Now, please don’t think I’m mocking anyone’s beliefs, because I share them too, but—it occurred to me that anyone who believes in the virgin birth; that someone rose from the dead; in invisible beings either protecting them from harm or attempting to drive them to it; that bread and wine are actual flesh and blood; and that holding these beliefs constitutes an obligation to implement them politically… well. They’d better be cautious about who they go around calling mentally ill. Glass houses, stones, etc.
The irony kept me giggling all afternoon. Thanks, IngoB.
What Cupbearer said - I couldn't phrase it better.
(Leo)
Me too.
(I should not post when cross either )
[ 07. November 2011, 18:53: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No it doesn't. When I say my sister is a bad basketball player that isn't a moral judgement at all.
My bad. I meant relative term.
I'm not saying that gay people make worse parents, I'm saying that, biologically, a gay couple cannot become parents.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
When children need adoption there is normally a damn good reason.
Adoption raises the even bigger issue that Crœsos mentions. See my reply to him.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem with that analysis is that as soon as you start adding in concepts like "the good of society", you've started applying secular standards.
I wish you'd make your mind up.
I was just saying that the secular / religious distinction is not as clear cut as you made out. I was not saying that there wasn't a distinction at all.
First you accuse me of wanting a theocracy and then when I give you the secular reason you complain then too.
To be clear - my reason for opposing gay marriage is theological. However, I agree that, in a secular society, I cannot expect people to accept my position for theological reasons.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
As far as children being raised by same-sex couples, it should be noted that a good number of such children are actually being raised by a biological parent. These children are the products of either prior, opposite-sex relationships, or lesbian couples who have the ability to gestate their own kids with the proper starting materials. If you maintain that parenting by same-sex couples is harmful, either to the children or to some larger concept of "society", doesn't it follow that the custody of any children in such a situation should be reassigned to a heterosexual caregiver, no matter how flawed?
Thanks for raising this issue because it is probably the main reason why I'm opposed to gay marriage at societal level.
The adoption of children by gay couples is not the thing that particularly worries me. My hunch is that, if gay marriage is state recognised as the centre of a nuclear family then more common than adoption will be families comprising of kids from previous relationships and also children from surrogacy. That this is already becoming more common (one high profile case in Australia currently) suggests that it will become much more frequent if gay marriage becomes law.
Parenthood is genetically hardwired into humanity through evolution (see, secular argument here - I don't think this because of evolution but it is a secular argument). I don't really have much interest in young children to such a point that, before children, my wife was genuinely worried about how I'd treat kids if/when we had any. However, when it is your own children something kicks in. Changing nappies, getting up in the night, all that kind of stuff is just different when it is your own children.
I think it is harmful to children for society to do anything that encourages severing that link. I particularly think that surrogacy is a bad idea. Indeed one of the subplots of the book of Genesis seems to be that this screws people up. Indeed, with hindsight, some have even argued that the account of Abraham lays the blame of 9/11 partly at the feet of surrogacy.
ISTM that you are looking at the issue back to front. You are right in that it does seem cruel to deny needy children the loving support of gay parents. I'm not suggesting that children are forcibly sent back to their biological parents after a relationship breakdown, rather I'm talking about the state doing what it can not to encourage the break down in the first place.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Just as I think marriage involves the intent of having children so I think that a key aspect of parenting is modelling how to reproduce... That is not a moral problem but a biological one.
Can you say "far-fetched?" Do you deplore the fact that a single person can adopt a child? This criterion seems to exist in your mind only.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My hunch is that, if gay marriage is state recognised as the centre of a nuclear family then more common than adoption will be families comprising of kids from previous relationships and also children from surrogacy. That this is already becoming more common (one high profile case in Australia currently) suggests that it will become much more frequent if gay marriage becomes law.
And my hunch is that if gay marriage becomes law, this will happen. Rather than single parents and fractured marriages that are at either hot or cold war because there simply isn't the compatability there. How do you see the possibility of two loving and in love parents stacking up against the possibility of one parent or two parents not in love. Or the possibility of unmarried parents of the same sex because they can not get married. Personally I think that gay marriage is so far superior to the alternatives that the debate is daft.
quote:
ISTM that you are looking at the issue back to front. You are right in that it does seem cruel to deny needy children the loving support of gay parents. I'm not suggesting that children are forcibly sent back to their biological parents after a relationship breakdown, rather I'm talking about the state doing what it can not to encourage the break down in the first place.
If that's what worries you, stop worrying about who may worry and start worrying about who may divorce. If people are in a position to have a gay marriage then there are only two possibilities:
1: Any straight marriage has irrevocably broken down. This is not the state's fault - and to have a gay and a straight marriage simultaneously would be bigamous. Allowing gay marriage would do nothing here.
2: There never was a straight marriage and the main relationship was a gay one (with or without being open). However the state is now putting its sanction behind the dominant pair bond - encouraging it in exactly the way you want.
So your own arguments lead to gay marriage doing what you want.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think that a key aspect of parenting is modelling how to reproduce. (No jokes about the birds and bees please). I don't mean sex ed, I mean modelling right relationships between men and women with a goal to having and rearing children. Gay couples biologically cannot do that. That is not a moral problem but a biological one.
Single parents -- and there are a heck of a lot more of them than there are same-sex couple parents -- are just as unable to model right relationships between men and women as same sex couples. I trust you're going to be just as censorious of those who would allow single parents to continue to raise their children as you are of single-sex couples. And to draw equally nasty legal and moral implications about those single parents. Remember that a lot of those single parents are that way because their (opposite sex) spouses died, divorced them, deserted them. A lot of military parents are effectively single parents. Do they come under the same disapprovel?
FWIW, among the best parents I know are a same-sex couple (of 20+ years duration, now married), whose nephews (again FWIW) are all happily in hetero relationships. Their model was their uncles, who essentially raised them. Their father has been in three marriages (including his first, to their mother) and their mother in two. Which couple (the same-sex one, or any of the other combinations -- hetero) was the one that best modelled faithful marriage relationships?
John
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
IngoB made the comment that transgender people are mentally ill, and implied that they are therefore dismissible.
Dismissible? I have neither said nor implied that. Rather obviously, I would dismiss a transgendered person's opinion about their own gender as delusional, because this defines their mental illness for me. Apart from that they may very well be as functional or indeed brilliant as anyone else. (Though, as noted by yourself, in practice one mental illness rarely comes alone - be it because of its intrinsic genesis, or because of the extrinsic reactions of the environment.)
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
I don’t know whether IngoB intended to include me under that umbrella—I think I made it pretty clear in my post that I am transgender myself, but I’m perfectly willing to operate under the assumption that it was not meant as a personal attack—but she effectively placed me there whether I like it or not.
Quite so. I don't know you from Adam, or as it were, Eve. I am by the way a man, just in case you are actually confused about that, rather than trying to make a cute point.
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
There has been a great deal of controversy as to whether it ought to persist as a psychiatric diagnosis.
This is a lot more worrisome to me than your individual case could ever be.
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
We, and our doctors and counsellors, do not consider being transgender to be a psychiatric disorder in and of itself, and we recognize that by keeping it on the books as one we risk misunderstanding and opposition; but many of us also consider it the lesser of two evils, as the alternative would be losing, at least temporarily, all recourse to physical or psychological treatment.
Thus sanity prevails because the delusional are fraudulent. Unfortunately, the treatment is to adapt reality to delusion, rather than vice versa. So you get a half-cheer from me there.
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
Now, please don’t think I’m mocking anyone’s beliefs, because I share them too, but—it occurred to me that anyone who believes in the virgin birth; that someone rose from the dead; in invisible beings either protecting them from harm or attempting to drive them to it; that bread and wine are actual flesh and blood; and that holding these beliefs constitutes an obligation to implement them politically… well. They’d better be cautious about who they go around calling mentally ill. Glass houses, stones, etc.
If Catholic beliefs were wrong, it would still be exceedingly difficult if not impossible to prove them false. Whereas it is exceedingly difficult to make your false beliefs appear true to anyone but yourself. Ultimately, it cannot be done.
quote:
Originally posted by cupbearer:
The irony kept me giggling all afternoon. Thanks, IngoB.
I'm about as amusing as a cheese grater.
Look, I can do nothing for you, and you can do nothing for me. I suggest we leave it there.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Single parents -- and there are a heck of a lot more of them than there are same-sex couple parents -- are just as unable to model right relationships between men and women as same sex couples. I trust you're going to be just as censorious of those who would allow single parents to continue to raise their children as you are of single-sex couples. And to draw equally nasty legal and moral implications about those single parents. Remember that a lot of those single parents are that way because their (opposite sex) spouses died, divorced them, deserted them.
I don't think that is a fair conclusion to draw from what I said at all. There is a difference between making the best after relationships break down and tragedy strikes, and encouraging something to happen in the first place.
I think single parents should be given every support once they become single parents but no encouragement to become single parents in the first place.
Is it really that controversial to claim that the ideal parenting context is two natural parents? Am I not allowed to say anything positive about couples parenting without people assuming that I'm maliciously slighting single parents?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The problem with that analysis is that as soon as you start adding in concepts like "the good of society", you've started applying secular standards.
I wish you'd make your mind up.
I was just saying that the secular / religious distinction is not as clear cut as you made out. I was not saying that there wasn't a distinction at all.
First you accuse me of wanting a theocracy and then when I give you the secular reason you complain then too.
To be clear - my reason for opposing gay marriage is theological. However, I agree that, in a secular society, I cannot expect people to accept my position for theological reasons.
This neatly sums up the credibility difficulties of those opposing same-sex marriage for religious reasons. Their motivation is the inarguable "because God said so", but because this is unconvincing to those who don't believe in the same God other reasons have to be manufactured, like your claim that such arrangements are harmful in some tangible way. It's essentially an admission that the arguments being advanced are a smokescreen, and whether they're true or not isn't as important as whether they work.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Parenthood is genetically hardwired into humanity through evolution (see, secular argument here - I don't think this because of evolution but it is a secular argument).
That's more or less what I mean: advancing an argument you admit you don't find convincing in an effort to sway others. If the desire for parenthood were found to be due to non-genetic factors it wouldn't sway your opinion on this matter at all, since you don't find the argument convincing in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:I don't really have much interest in young children to such a point that, before children, my wife was genuinely worried about how I'd treat kids if/when we had any. However, when it is your own children something kicks in. Changing nappies, getting up in the night, all that kind of stuff is just different when it is your own children.
I think it is harmful to children for society to do anything that encourages severing that link. I particularly think that surrogacy is a bad idea. Indeed one of the subplots of the book of Genesis seems to be that this screws people up. Indeed, with hindsight, some have even argued that the account of Abraham lays the blame of 9/11 partly at the feet of surrogacy.
First off, I'm not sure how any Christian can claim that surrogacy is always a bad idea. Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, a lot of the children raised by same sex couples, including (but not limited to) the ones from surrogacy, are the genetic children of one same-sex partner. Third, isn't your argument, if taken at face value, equally applicable to adoption by opposite-sex couples? It's more an argument against adoption generally than against adoptions by same-sex couples.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM that you are looking at the issue back to front. You are right in that it does seem cruel to deny needy children the loving support of gay parents. I'm not suggesting that children are forcibly sent back to their biological parents after a relationship breakdown, rather I'm talking about the state doing what it can not to encourage the break down in the first place.
Again, in a lot of cases one of the gay parents is the biological parent. Do you consider homosexuality to automatically disqualify a parent from raising their own child?
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
IngoB, there is ample scientific evidence that the 'mental illness' of transgender people is directly due to their brain PHYSICALLY matching the characteristics of their claimed gender. A person says they are male when their brain IS male. Just because you can see the outer female body, doesn't mean that the whole thing is just some random delusion, or that it's the brain that needs 'fixing' rather than the body. I don't think you have any right in those kinds of circumstances - where there is a demonstrable physical link to how a person feels - to say that what you can see externally is 'reality' and that what a person thinks internally is 'delusion'. Why should the organs you can see get priority over the brain you can't?
Most of the scientific evidence consists of autopsy results after transgender people have committed suicide. It's a rather sad indictment that it takes that kind of outcome in order to take people seriously and go "well look at that, they weren't making it up". I'd much rather believe people while they're still alive.
The processes that people go through before transitioning their body are quite rigorous, and designed to ensure that the treatment is the right thing to do. This is not stuff that's done on a whim.
[ 08. November 2011, 01:34: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
I appreciate that this discussion must be tedious for many but I'm finding it helpful in clarifying exactly where the fault lines lie.
Apologies to those who find this a painful issue personally - please believe me that I'm not trying to inflict emotional pain but to understand the arguments. I have found talking to gay guys and couples in RL helpful too.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This neatly sums up the credibility difficulties of those opposing same-sex marriage for religious reasons. Their motivation is the inarguable "because God said so", but because this is unconvincing to those who don't believe in the same God other reasons have to be manufactured, like your claim that such arrangements are harmful in some tangible way. It's essentially an admission that the arguments being advanced are a smokescreen, and whether they're true or not isn't as important as whether they work.
What you are advocating here is some form of atheocracy (whatever the mirror image of a theocracy is.)
Your argument is tantamount to saying that Christians must concede that there is no God if they ever want to engage with politics.
I use religious arguments because I believe them to be true. I do not, however, expect others to accept my conclusions about society just because of my beliefs. That does not mean that I think they are unconvincing.
You are offering a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between a theocracy and excluding all religious thought from society. This has got nothing to do with whether religious ideas are convincing or not.
I repeat: I think that gay marriage is not good for society. That is a secular argument which is fair game in a democracy. I think it is not good for society largely based on my religious beliefs.
There is no smokescreen here - I'm more than happy to explain why I think gay marriage is not good for society.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's more or less what I mean: advancing an argument you admit you don't find convincing in an effort to sway others. If the desire for parenthood were found to be due to non-genetic factors it wouldn't sway your opinion on this matter at all, since you don't find the argument convincing in the first place.
That's not what I said. I do find the argument from evolution convincing. It is the not the ultimate reason why I hold my position though.
And again this is not even-handed. Exactly the same criticism could be made to supporters of gay marriage. Human beings are incredibly inconsistent in how they form opinions. I'd like them to be as consistent as possible but I'm not going to dismiss everyone else's opinion until I'm satisfied that it is perfectly consistent. Governments have to be realists in this. Which cuts both ways.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
First off, I'm not sure how any Christian can claim that surrogacy is always a bad idea.
I didn't say that it was always bad I said that it was not ideal. Plus I think you'd have to be something like an adoptionist in your Christology for the incarnation to be an example of surrogacy.
Indeed Christians see the incarnation as God stepping into our messed up world to put things right. In fact it raises the question that just because something can happen does not mean that it should be seen as normative. I'm fairly certain that Christians do not see the incarnation as normative.
A Senior Partner in a Law firm Edinburgh had a favourite motto - hard cases make for bad law. A recent example of this is the woman in the UK (who had a baby via IVF at the age of 57) calling for there to be an upper limit for the age of IVF. She is now saying that, even if she would have found the decision cruel at the time to be refused the chance to have a child, with hindsight she now thinks it would have been the right decision.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, a lot of the children raised by same sex couples, including (but not limited to) the ones from surrogacy, are the genetic children of one same-sex partner. Third, isn't your argument, if taken at face value, equally applicable to adoption by opposite-sex couples? It's more an argument against adoption generally than against adoptions by same-sex couples.
My point was that it is impossible for a gay couple to have children that are genetically related to both of them. They must be severing the relationship with either the natural father or mother.
Heterosexual adoption is different because they are trying to help after something has gone wrong. With gay couples either surrogacy is being used (which will deliberately separate birth parents) or a previous parenting relationship is being broken to form the new one.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Do you consider homosexuality to automatically disqualify a parent from raising their own child?
No - not at all.
Parenting has got nothing to do with sexual orientation. I think that it has got something to do with a male and female couple though - as in, it is not ideal.
[ 08. November 2011, 04:25: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Johnny, I do understand the distinction you're trying to make between a secular position and the religious views that inform them.
The problem, I think, is that if the sole or dominant reason for your secular position IS a religious view, then it simply isn't convincing or even cogent for the purposes of secular debate. As soon as you say that your reasoning process is 'because God said so', then you've completely lost anyone who DOESN'T think that God 'said so'.
Which as well as including people who don't think God exists, also includes those who interpret Scripture differently.
It ends up being an invitation to disregard your position entirely.
If you have other reasoning processes that back up and support the religious component of your view, then that's different. I'm only talking about where the religious interpretation is the crux of your argument (pun semi-intended).
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Orfeo, you raise a question that has been on mind a lot recently - what place does religion have in the public arena at all?
Doesn't the logic of your position mean that theists have to act and think as if they were atheists when involved in public discourse? (And in which case, why bother being theists at all if God doesn't exist in public?)
Ever since David Hume I don't think western society has come up with an adequate answer to this question. IMHO so much discussion over issues like this one (on this thread) fall foul of trying to move society from the indicative to the imperative.
Ummh. Maybe another thread in purg?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
IngoB, there is ample scientific evidence that the 'mental illness' of transgender people is directly due to their brain PHYSICALLY matching the characteristics of their claimed gender.
Ample scientific evidence? Since PubMed didn't particularly turn anything up, I tried Google. This is what I found, from January 2011, with the author claiming "It's the first time it has been shown that the brains of female-to-male transsexual people are masculinised," Guillamon says."
The study is based on DTI. As it happens, I know quite a bit about DTI and brain connectivity. Diffusion methods are at this point in time more an art than an exact science. In particular, DTI is now old tech known to come with a truckload of analytical problems in tractography. And, of course, this entire study has a chicken and egg problem. Is it the connectivity that has shaped the behavior, or is it the behavior that has shaped the connectivity? We know that connectivity in the brain re-shapes according to what people do.
The scientific evidence for your claim appears not to be "ample", but rather scant and weak. The genetic evidence however is easy to obtain and generally unequivocal, as is indeed the bodily appearance (up till the point when one hammers it with hormones and surgery).
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Most of the scientific evidence consists of autopsy results after transgender people have committed suicide.
Refs? And again, I note the chicken/egg issue.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The processes that people go through before transitioning their body are quite rigorous, and designed to ensure that the treatment is the right thing to do. This is not stuff that's done on a whim.
Ideological bullshit remains ideological bullshit, even if performed rigorously. I would be hard pressed to invent a case where political agendas are more likely to corrupt good practice. It's the perfect gender storm, really.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Is it really that controversial to claim that the ideal parenting context is two natural parents? Am I not allowed to say anything positive about couples parenting without people assuming that I'm maliciously slighting single parents?
Yes, because you are entirely ignoring the specific circumstances of each case. You should, for example, take into account that many children are born to heterosexual couples simply as a side-effect of the fact that they bonk. Whereas, especially in the case of single parents, infertile heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, they have to jump through huge, sometimes very expensive (in the case of fertility treatments), sometimes humiliating hoops (think, for example, of adoption agencies turning up their noses "just because") in order to become the parents they desperately want to be.
Your argument seems to be a quasi-statistical one. We imagine that all possible heterosexual and fertile couples have children, as well as the other cases, and then some magical "average parental unit" is calculated in all cases (we must assume all potential pairs or singles have children, because we are testing for the "intrinsic" parenting capability of all arrangements). We then are told to imagine that the average parental performance for heterosexual, fertile couples must inherently be better. But by how much, even if this is the case? And what is the variance on that distribution of parental goodness? Surely there must be many fertile heterosexual couples who would be demonstrably worse than most instances of the other arrangements? We know that the variance must be large, because you see such a diversity in fertile heterosexual parents alone. The truth is probably that there is such a degree of overlap on the bell curves (assuming these are normal distributions) as to make such a point based on idealised averages meaningless. Especially if you take into account that fertile heterosexual couples on both ends of spectrum are likely to produce offspring (or, horrors, more from the lower end because their level of responsibility in all areas is probably low). Whereas I'd argue that for other types of parents, those on the better end of the bell curve are more likely to actually become parents (remember that we were talking about parenting *potential* when we talked about "intrinsic" parenting capability, but now face the question of who actually becomes a parent).
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point was that it is impossible for a gay couple to have children that are genetically related to both of them. They must be severing the relationship with either the natural father or mother.
Heterosexual adoption is different because they are trying to help after something has gone wrong. With gay couples either surrogacy is being used (which will deliberately separate birth parents) or a previous parenting relationship is being broken to form the new one.
Does this mean that you would wish to deny infertile heterosexual couples the route of surrogacy as well? That's deliberately separating a child from at least one of its birth parents. If "something has gone wrong" is infertility, then giving infertile heterosexual couples a free pass because you like the combination of their genitalia better is no basis for an argument. Same-sex couples and single people also have infertile relationships, surrogacy ensures the same amount of biological parenthood on all cases (assuming at least one fertile actual donor in all cases). If your argument is that heterosexual couples are more often "surprised" that they are infertile (together), does that mean heterosexuals who know before entering into a relationship that they are infertile should be forbidden from using surrogacy because they cackled evilly and enterred the relationship regardless? We could make laws that doctors should report all known infertile individuals for placement in a registry of people-who-should-know-better, why not mandatory fertility tests at approximately 18 years of age? This surrogacy thing just produces children who are secretly hated by their parents.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Johnny, I do understand the distinction you're trying to make between a secular position and the religious views that inform them.
The problem, I think, is that if the sole or dominant reason for your secular position IS a religious view, then it simply isn't convincing or even cogent for the purposes of secular debate. As soon as you say that your reasoning process is 'because God said so', then you've completely lost anyone who DOESN'T think that God 'said so'.
Which as well as including people who don't think God exists, also includes those who interpret Scripture differently.
It ends up being an invitation to disregard your position entirely.
If you have other reasoning processes that back up and support the religious component of your view, then that's different. I'm only talking about where the religious interpretation is the crux of your argument (pun semi-intended).
Although they are nearly all "God said so" with a bit of spiritual utilitarianism thrown in - "therefore we think it is the best way for society to operate". It's the same as for anyone who doesn't believe in unfettered personal freedom as the be all and end all of moral discussion.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I appreciate that this discussion must be tedious for many but I'm finding it helpful in clarifying exactly where the fault lines lie.
I'm finding it helpful. Can I test my interpretation of what you are saying, to check whether I am (at last) understanding you correctly?
You think (based on your Christian beliefs - I assume about the authority of scripture and/or tradition) that homeosexuality, and by extension gay marriage, is something that God has forbidden.
That is a religious position which you (not being a homophobe) would not necessarily have come to if you were not a Christian, but which you belief because it derives from your faith.
You do not think that God is either petty or arbitrary, therefore he must have a good reason for forbidding things. It is reasonable to assume that those things harm society.
Therefore you consider that gay marriage cannot be good for society. You might (or might not) be able to proffer your own speculations as to why that might be, but those aren't the important thing - your reasons for thinking it harmful do not depend on how clearly you see the harm, but on your trust that God really has said this, and if he has, then you trust him, and are therefore sure that good reasons must exist.
As a citizen in a democracy, you will give your political support to laws which are for society's good as you see it. You have 'secret data' from a religious source that gay marriage is in fact bad in secular terms, even if no one sees why. You would not wish to impose your religious views on others, but see no difficulty in voting for their secular good, which you know from a religious source.
Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?
If so, while I think I still disagree with you, it seems much more humane and rational that I had first taken your position to be. My objection is that in practice, if not in principle, you are stilling wishing to order society on a religious principle on this issue which (a) many people, and most of those actually affected, will not accept; and (b) cannot be applied with any integrity by a secular legal system.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
IngoB, there is ample scientific evidence that the 'mental illness' of transgender people is directly due to their brain PHYSICALLY matching the characteristics of their claimed gender.
Ample scientific evidence? Since PubMed didn't particularly turn anything up, I tried Google. This is what I found, from January 2011, with the author claiming "It's the first time it has been shown that the brains of female-to-male transsexual people are masculinised," Guillamon says."
Given that I a saw a documentary on this several years ago, the author's claim is rubbish.
I'm not a walking medical citation book, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't provide you with links to the required journals. My subscriptions ran out.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The genetic evidence however is easy to obtain and generally unequivocal, as is indeed the bodily appearance (up till the point when one hammers it with hormones and surgery).
Unequivocal, eh?
So, if you know someone's sex chromosomes, you always know what they look like.
I don't think so!!!
What the blazes does 'generally unequivocal' mean, anyway? How can you have something that is 'unequivocal' only MOST of the time? It's a complete contradiction in terms.
The entire point of a discussion like this is that a rule you formulate as applying to 100% of the population doesn't work for a very small percentage of the population. We're not asking you to upturn the entire universe, Ingo, just acknowledge that not every single being in it fits neatly into your orderly categories.
[ 08. November 2011, 08:45: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Ideological bullshit remains ideological bullshit, even if performed rigorously.
Motes and beams, old chap.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Hi Frisky, whereabouts in CT do you live? (which suburb?)
How's the RWC post-mortem going? Has Bryce Lawrence been forgiven yet?
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Yes, because you are entirely ignoring the specific circumstances of each case. You should, for example, take into account that many children are born to heterosexual couples simply as a side-effect of the fact that they bonk. Whereas, especially in the case of single parents, infertile heterosexual couples and same-sex couples, they have to jump through huge, sometimes very expensive (in the case of fertility treatments), sometimes humiliating hoops (think, for example, of adoption agencies turning up their noses "just because") in order to become the parents they desperately want to be.
Heterosexual marriage is not going that well in western society, that is true.
However, while I'm familiar with the proverb, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it", I've never comes across one that says, "If it is broke, then smash it up a bit more."
You may disagree but I think the state should be doing more to prevent children needing adoption in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Your argument seems to be a quasi-statistical one.
No, it's not. Eliab has summarised it fairly well.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Does this mean that you would wish to deny infertile heterosexual couples the route of surrogacy as well?
I think there is a difference between lobbying for the government to keep its traditional definition of marriage and lobbying for them to change the laws on adoption etc. as a reactionary step.
Therefore I'd not be lobbying for this at a public level. However, as a personally held opinion, yes, I do not think that any couple should go the route of surrogacy. I think that having a child is a gift not a right. I do not understand why God chooses to deny that gift to some who desperately want it but he does. I have no problem with science aiding conception but, personally, I think surrogacy crosses a line. YMMV.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
So, if you know someone's sex chromosomes, you always know what they look like. I don't think so!!! What the blazes does 'generally unequivocal' mean, anyway? How can you have something that is 'unequivocal' only MOST of the time? It's a complete contradiction in terms.
Well, examples like the very one you quote made me put a "generally" in front of the "unequivocal" after I had already written the latter. Admittedly, "almost always" would have been a better expression.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
The entire point of a discussion like this is that a rule you formulate as applying to 100% of the population doesn't work for a very small percentage of the population. We're not asking you to upturn the entire universe, Ingo, just acknowledge that not every single being in it fits neatly into your orderly categories.
This is hardly the entire point of the discussion.
Here is something for you to ponder. As it happens, I'm currently in the process of setting up a grant application to the MRC for detecting brain networks in a mental illness, including drug effects. (No, I will not volunteer any further details, certainly nor prior to submission. Suffice to say that I am not the PI and I'm not handling the patients, for which I have neither qualification nor talent. I'm on the analysis / modelling side of the team.) The point of the study is basically to detect more rapidly what drugs to give to combat the mental illness.
Say I would agree that one can systematically detect "transgender people" using neuroimaging (I'm not convinced at all, but for the sake of argument). It does not follow that such information means we should help them switch their gender. We can detect early onset dementia from neuroimaging. We do not use this information to make people more demented. We can detect schizophrenia from neuroimaging to some extent, we do not use this information to make people more schizophrenic. Again, depression may be detectable in brain networks. This information is not used to make people more depressed. Our study likewise would not be used to make the mental illness more actue, if we could find it in the brain.
From detection does not follow appropriate treatment. There's something completely different involved here, a clinical judgement about the "normal state" that one wishes to obtain in the patient. Following the examples above, the more typical reaction actually would be to combat the detected difference. Say a woman thinks she really should be a man. Why give her hormones to make her more masculine? Why not rather give her hormones to make her more feminine? Etc.
These are policy issues, moral issues, perhaps philosophical issues. They are not really scientific issues. It is just plain wrong to think that science somehow can deliver the "killer argument" in this discussion. Science delivers data, not wisdom.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Ideological bullshit remains ideological bullshit, even if performed rigorously.
Motes and beams, old chap.
I'm quite aware that this can be turned against my positions as well. It was intended as a general statement: being rigorous is not the same as being right, it just means that one isn't sloppy.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Is that a fair summary of what you are saying?
Pretty much - thanks for listening patiently.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
If so, while I think I still disagree with you, it seems much more humane and rational that I had first taken your position to be. My objection is that in practice, if not in principle, you are stilling wishing to order society on a religious principle on this issue which (a) many people, and most of those actually affected, will not accept; and (b) cannot be applied with any integrity by a secular legal system.
My question would be the same one I posed Orfeo.
I sort of half-agree with you but I do wonder if you've swallowed a modern liberal worldview hook-line-and-sinker.
In a multi-cultural society (e.g. Sydney or London) it is common for secularists to argue that religion has no place in public discourse (for the reasons you give).
It was a while ago that I came across it but I think it was Peter Singer who once said that he thought that the greatest agent for secularisation in the 20th century had been the church. What he was referring to was your arguments above. The result of such thinking is that faith only has a part to play in our private lives. Hence Christianity becomes a leisure pursuit.
My Baptist tradition is very hot on toleration in its political sense. I would never condone any sense of forcing my morality onto others. If Australia chooses to legislate for gay marriage then I'm not going to become bitter. I'm well aware that many people will think I'm ridiculous for holding my views and that maybe most people agree with your a) and b) above. But what I cannot do is operate according to different principles in public and private. If God really has ordered society in a particular way then surely I have a responsibility to at least tell that to society? Otherwise it seriously suggests that I don't really believe it to be true.
As you say, I believe that God is wise and good. Even if I can't see why he would so order society in this way I'm assuming he must have a good reason. Therefore I can uphold his values to the world with confidence. If they are true and really for the good of society then, in time, society will begin to see that - either by rational argument or simply intuitively. This is not a naive trust in the democratic process (clearly the people who elected Hitler did not do a good thing) but a conviction that truth tends to ring true.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
From detection does not follow appropriate treatment. There's something completely different involved here, a clinical judgement about the "normal state" that one wishes to obtain in the patient. Following the examples above, the more typical reaction actually would be to combat the detected difference. Say a woman thinks she really should be a man. Why give her hormones to make her more masculine? Why not rather give her hormones to make her more feminine? Etc.
These are policy issues, moral issues, perhaps philosophical issues. They are not really scientific issues. It is just plain wrong to think that science somehow can deliver the "killer argument" in this discussion. Science delivers data, not wisdom.
Oh, absolutely there are all of those issues involved. I just find it somewhat appalling that you are so quick to assert that things you label as being illnesses or sicknesses ought to be labelled as such by everyone. Because it seems that the notion of natural variation passes you by and you have some kind of eugenic ideal of what a human being ought to be.
Why should everyone be heterosexual? Do you think that everyone was SUPPOSED to be heterosexual? As I understand it, your own Catholic Church explicitly acknowledges that homosexuals were born that way. God knit us that way in the womb. God apparently doesn't want us to have sex, but that's a different issue. Your own church takes the view that I have been gay since birth. It's my normal state.
Why should everybody be made un-depressed, for that matter? There is natural variation in happiness between people, on a genetic basis. Should that all be undone?
We treat depression when it actually impairs functioning. We don't make naturally less happy people into shiny bouncy people just because we think there's something wrong with having a natural state of grumpiness.
And when it comes to transgender people, if there WAS an option to change their brain rather than their body than maybe they would take it. But it would be their choice, which one to go with. For you to label the body as 'right' and the brain as 'wrong', to decide that the body is the 'real' part of a person and the mind isn't - basically, to reduce a person's essence to their most tangible parts - is very much a value judgment on your part. The problem with your stance isn't so much the value judgment as the hints that anyone that chooses the other way is creating some kind of abomination.
It's also seems like a decidedly non-spiritual approach I might add. I'm no Gnostic, but it still seems decidedly worrisome to me for a Christian to say that it's the outer casing of the body that determines a person's true self, overriding whatever is going on in their mind. I would have thought a person's sense of who they are was a great deal more important than that.
[ 08. November 2011, 10:48: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Even if I can't see why he would so order society in this way I'm assuming he must have a good reason.
I think this is probably the spot at which you and I part company. Because if I think that something God appears to have said makes no rational sense, then my instinct is to consider whether or not I heard him correctly. Rather than take my understanding on faith despite my inability to support it with reason, I'm inclined to re-examine whether the understanding was correct to begin with.
God did, after all, supply us with the capacity to reason.
And that's actually exactly what happened with my own views on homosexuality. I spent years believing that God had said homosexual sex was wrong. But my rationality told me that acting on that belief just didn't work very well and caused all sorts of problems. So I went back and asked, was I sure that God had actually said that?
And after re-examining, I realised that no, I wasn't sure he'd said any such thing. He'd said a lot of things about rape, and abuse of power, and pagan orgies, but the more I looked at the context the LESS it made sense to think that God had said that homosexual sex was wrong, full stop. The best passages were ambiguous. And the WORST passages were the ones that people trotted out in schoolboy fashion - on examination, the idea that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuality was patently ridiculous.
So while I'm happy to assume that God has good reasons, I'm not at all happy to assume that all is well with the world when I can't find the reasons. There's a good chance I can't find them because I'm looking in the wrong place altogether.
Posted by cupbearer (# 16746) on
:
IngoB, it's been some time since I've been the direct object of so much self-righteous condescension and contempt. I believe the last time was when I gave my partner's mother some high-end deodorant for Christmas. I just seem to know how to push people's buttons; I certainly seem to know how to push yours.
Since, as you say, there is no chance of either us changing the other's mind on this issue (or, I would speculate, on any other), I am more than happy to drop the conversation with you. But I will not stop talking: about my experience, about the transgender experience in general, and about how they both intersect with Christianity morally, socially, and theologically. If my thoughts on the matter prove to be an occasion of sin for you by tempting you to be uncharitable, I suggest you ignore them. I will similarly protect myself.
I wish you the best, IngoB, as I do the patients in the study in which you will be participating. I will remember you all in my prayers.
[ 08. November 2011, 11:22: Message edited by: cupbearer ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Orfeo, you raise a question that has been on mind a lot recently - what place does religion have in the public arena at all?
Doesn't the logic of your position mean that theists have to act and think as if they were atheists when involved in public discourse? (And in which case, why bother being theists at all if God doesn't exist in public?)
Ever since David Hume I don't think western society has come up with an adequate answer to this question. IMHO so much discussion over issues like this one (on this thread) fall foul of trying to move society from the indicative to the imperative.
Ummh. Maybe another thread in purg?
I can come back to this now and answer it as follows:
'Because God said so' works rather better if you don't stop the sentence there, but continue on with 'and here's why he said it'.
[ 08. November 2011, 11:24: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can come back to this now and answer it as follows:
'Because God said so' works rather better if you don't stop the sentence there, but continue on with 'and here's why he said it'.
If you mean that generally we should say this, then I quite agree.
However, if you are making an absolute statement then surely you have just made God redundant since we can work out how to live entirely without his help?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just find it somewhat appalling that you are so quick to assert that things you label as being illnesses or sicknesses ought to be labelled as such by everyone. Because it seems that the notion of natural variation passes you by and you have some kind of eugenic ideal of what a human being ought to be.
Eugenic ideal? If someone doesn't recognize walls and hence tends to walk into them, I conclude that they are ill. Perhaps its blindness, perhaps some weird cognitive defect, perhaps insanity. This illness may well be a "natural" variation in the statistical sense, but not one that has equal rights, so to speak. It's not like a difference in skin colour: people generally can detect walls and should avoid walking into them. It's a dysfunction. People also have a particular gender (almost always...). Not being able to accept the gender which you have is in my eyes a dysfunction, i.e., people generally can and should live their lives as what they are, gender-wise. You may disagree with that judgement. Fine, we can argue about that. But I reject the suggestion that I'm pursuing some sinister "genetic agenda" here just because I identify a dysfunction.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
God apparently doesn't want us to have sex, but that's a different issue.
It's the only issue I'm interested in as far as homosexuality is concerned. A homosexual tendency is of interest only because it is often difficult to not follow sexual tendencies of any kind, which leads us back to the original issue. Personally, I think homosexuality as a religious / moral issue is way overrated. The world really has a lot of other problems more pressing than whether someone is gay or not. For example, a discussion about usury seems way more necessary.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
We treat depression when it actually impairs functioning. We don't make naturally less happy people into shiny bouncy people just because we think there's something wrong with having a natural state of grumpiness.
I reckon you should take a closer look at the sales of Prozac et al., in particular in the US. But yes, in general I agree. If someone is merely unhappy about being a man or a woman, then let them be merely unhappy about it.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And when it comes to transgender people, if there WAS an option to change their brain rather than their body than maybe they would take it. But it would be their choice, which one to go with. For you to label the body as 'right' and the brain as 'wrong', to decide that the body is the 'real' part of a person and the mind isn't - basically, to reduce a person's essence to their most tangible parts - is very much a value judgment on your part.
There is no choice. Maybe one day we can turn a man into a woman and vice versa, literally. Nowadays, we just can't. We can create the superficial appearance of a man out of a woman, and vice versa, treating the body like a sort of garment to be manipulated at will. The "converted" transgendered person however remains in exactly the same state as before, their mind at odds with their bodily reality. The only difference is that it takes a doctor's exam to detect this, or the attempt to procreate, rather than a casual glance by anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's also seems like a decidedly non-spiritual approach I might add. I'm no Gnostic, but it still seems decidedly worrisome to me for a Christian to say that it's the outer casing of the body that determines a person's true self, overriding whatever is going on in their mind. I would have thought a person's sense of who they are was a great deal more important than that.
If we are talking religion now, then I'd simply point out that we are created man or woman. There's no hint anywhere in nature or scripture that God intended us to consider this as a "choice" we are supposed to make.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Johnny S: quote:
I don't really have much interest in young children to such a point that, before children, my wife was genuinely worried about how I'd treat kids if/when we had any. However, when it is your own children something kicks in. Changing nappies, getting up in the night, all that kind of stuff is just different when it is your own children.
If you care for children long enough, they become yours. As any midwife or health visitor will tell you, the bonding process in humans is not purely biological (or in other species either; ask any shepherd who's had to find foster mothers for orphan lambs). And most humans are capable of overcoming their baser urges if they have a good reason for doing so, otherwise none of us would be here; I'm sure my parents felt like strangling me, many times.
In the UK at least, the adoption process is so long, intrusive and emotionally taxing that anyone who is not absolutely determined to have children will drop out long before they are approved as adoptive parents. I'm not sure about surrogacy, but I would imagine that is also fairly strictly regulated and I think the surrogate mother has the right to keep the child if she wants to.
Yes, there are people who abuse children. Some will even abuse their own children. However this is not a good reason for assuming that all homosexual couples will inevitably turn out to be abusers. They are no more likely to be bad parents than anyone else.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If we are talking religion now, then I'd simply point out that we are created man or woman. There's no hint anywhere in nature or scripture that God intended us to consider this as a "choice" we are supposed to make.
How binary. What about intersex people? (According to this 1%
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Now if only we could develop some treatments for people suffering the delusional disorder of zealotry.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
How binary. What about intersex people? (According to this 1%
As my last post, which you quoted from, explicitly stated "People also have a particular gender (almost always...)." So much for "binary".
What about intersex people? They have (from your link) "chromosomal, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies", i.e., they have to cope with defects. Other people are created with other defects. And intersex people do not have any choice about their (defect) gender either. So I don't know why this would be at odds with what I said: There simply is no indication from nature or scripture that God intends us to have a choice in our gender.
Now, this is a religious (Christian) argument, as I have admitted from the outset. I do not expect people who are not religious to care about it. But if you are, then it is something to consider.
Posted by TonyK (# 35) on
:
Host Mode <ACTIVATE>
IngoB - in your post replying to Cupbearer early this morning you concluded with the phrase quote:
Look, I can do nothing for you, and you can do nothing for me. I suggest we leave it there.
But within a few hours you had gone back to the allegation (AIUI) that there is a link between transgenderism and 'mental illness' and there have been further posts on the subject since.
There are strong elements of 'personal attack' in these allegations - though not of a nature that necessarily warrant taking the matter to Hell - though I would not be surprised in the circumstances if Cupbearer called you there!
I am getting flak from several sources about this part of the discussion - not, I hasten to add, from Cupbearer himself, who seems to be responding well to your comments.
Could we please go back to the situation earlier today and leave this aspect of the discussion behind. Apart from anything else it is a severe tangent on this thread (though I realise that you didn't start it) and heaven knows there are enough other contentious points to engage the posters
Host Mode <DE-ACTIVATE>
Your aye ... TonyK
Host, Dead Horses
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
TonyK,
It's fine with me to drop this tangent, in particular since I do not intend any personal attack on Cupbearer (beyond what is unavoidable given my opinion on the subject matter).
However, I must say that hearing about pressure behind the scenes made me think twice about saying this. To whom it may concern: If you want a piece of me, I'm not hard to find. Bring it on. If you rather want to stop me from doing damage, send me a PM. Yes, the latter has happened before and on occasion has worked, i.e., I sometimes do follow sensible advice.
Best,
Ingo
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
How binary. What about intersex people? (According to this 1%
As my last post, which you quoted from, explicitly stated "People also have a particular gender (almost always...)." So much for "binary".
What about intersex people? They have (from your link) "chromosomal, morphologic, genital and/or gonadal anomalies", i.e., they have to cope with defects. Other people are created with other defects. And intersex people do not have any choice about their (defect) gender either. So I don't know why this would be at odds with what I said: There simply is no indication from nature or scripture that God intends us to have a choice in our gender.
Now, this is a religious (Christian) argument, as I have admitted from the outset. I do not expect people who are not religious to care about it. But if you are, then it is something to consider.
So God does not only create male and female. He creates intersex. 'And behold it was very good.'?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So God does not only create male and female. He creates intersex. 'And behold it was very good.'?
Defects are not good at all and Genesis has more than two chapters.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I just find it somewhat appalling that you are so quick to assert that things you label as being illnesses or sicknesses ought to be labelled as such by everyone. Because it seems that the notion of natural variation passes you by and you have some kind of eugenic ideal of what a human being ought to be.
Eugenic ideal? If someone doesn't recognize walls and hence tends to walk into them, I conclude that they are ill. Perhaps its blindness, perhaps some weird cognitive defect, perhaps insanity. This illness may well be a "natural" variation in the statistical sense, but not one that has equal rights, so to speak. It's not like a difference in skin colour: people generally can detect walls and should avoid walking into them. It's a dysfunction.
People who are born blind would tend to disagree with you that there's something 'wrong' with them, though. They perceive the world differently. I'm quite sure they'd like to develop techniques to avoid running into walls, but that's not the same thing as saying 'in order to avoid walls, you MUST see'.
And similarly, it's well documented that people born deaf often resent quite strongly the notion that they ought to be made to hear. Some of them may choose to, but many of them feel that they can relate to the world just fine without hearing.
As for the tangent, I'll leave it at this: I'm shaking my head at the fact that you can acknowledge 'intersex' in the sense of mixed physical characteristic involving the genitals and outward physical appearance, but not 'transgender' which is mixed physical characteristics where one of the physical organs involved is the brain. It's the same issue.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Bring it on.
As you wish. Outside of Hell, avoid smudging the boundaries of personal affront by pretending there is an objective way to convey insult that isn't insulting. If you do not understand what I mean, then I suggest you avoid such boundaries entirely.
And, while you're at it, avoid seeming to offer any opinion whatsoever on an Official Post outside of the Styx.
-RooK
Admin
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, there are people who abuse children. Some will even abuse their own children. However this is not a good reason for assuming that all homosexual couples will inevitably turn out to be abusers. They are no more likely to be bad parents than anyone else.
I think you've misunderstood me so far.
I hope that I haven't implied that I think gay couples are more likely to abuse children. That is certainly not the case - abuse hadn't even entered my mind until you have just raised it now.
Since you mention it, child abuse is far more likely to happen from parents (mostly fathers) who are not the natural parents.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Johnny S:
Sorry, I think I did misunderstand you. What you seemed to be suggesting was that there is some kind of magical biological imperative that kicks in when you have your own children to prevent you abusing them. I don't think this is true.
I wasn't thinking specifically about sexual abuse, which is why I used the broader term 'abuse'. Shaking the baby because she won't stop crying or deliberately starving her would count as abuse.
You may be right that people are less likely to abuse their own (biological) children. The adoption process is designed to weed out potential abusers, as far as that's possible.
And the main danger of sexual abuse is from heterosexual men. Mum's new boyfriend or husband. Grandad. Uncle John. Refusing to allow homosexual marriage does nothing to protect against this.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
Hi Johnny, thanks for the reply. I live on the edge of the central business district in Cape Town. I think the mood regarding the RWC ended up being okay, the team was welcomed home in a positive way. The team's coach quit of his own accord (apparently), so there was no chance for anyone to have heads roll. In SA rugby, all is well and dandy until a loss, and suddenly the coach just has to go.
Back to the topic though. I'm going to assume from what Eliab wrote that your position regarding same-sex marriage and homosexuality in general is non-negotiable, in the sense that it stops at "God thinks it's a good idea to ... and not a good idea to ...".
Please excuse the mini-essay that follows.
I think the question of how one's sincerely held beliefs should influence your interaction with (mostly) secular society is an interesting one, one which I'm very happy to discuss.
I do have a deeply visceral response to someone deciding that, through action or inaction, severely constraining my freedom (or keeping it constrained, depending on jurisdiction) to care for my partner, and the ability of friends to care for their children, is justified if they have a belief that God just says so. This is not intended as a snark, it is necessary to point out the immense importance this has for LGBT people (repeatedly if needed) and the insecurity many of us face when dealing with a generally unsympathetic, often hostile, world. I would like to ask you to consider that, at very least, a higher level of theological discomfort for yourself might be the Christian response in a case where the stakes are this high for someone else. This discussion isn't about some hypothetical future where same-sex couples may in good conscience make lifelong commitments to each other or dare to raise a family, these are already realities and you may choose to make life more difficult for us and our families if you really think God wants you to (again, through action or inaction).
What we don't need is someone telling us that it is a shame that we have to exist and they wish it didn't have to be like that. What people often miss in all this is that, despite the challenges we face in order to obtain anything close to the security others take for granted, *it is worth it*, so very, very worth it. We and those close to us know this at the deepest level. Perhaps "God says" is sometimes found in the stories of the people who are actually most affected by the theories of others. I would very much like to include the witness of transgender people on this point too (Cupbearer, I apologise for not having interacted with your posts up to now, I've appreciated reading them).
It is often forgotten that there was a time when Christians had very little but their own witness to win friends in a hostile world that derided them. (In some places, this is still the case). With the usual warnings about quotes on the internet, here is a quote from the Wikipedia page on the persecution of Christians within the Roman empire:
quote:
In the 3rd century, the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry wrote:
How can people not be in every way impious and atheistic who have apostatized from the customs of our ancestors through which every nation and city is sustained? ... What else are they than fighters against God?"
What kept them going through this time was the quiet knowledge that they had seen and been given something wonderful, though few would believe them at the time. Like them, I can only say that I have seen and been given something wonderful. Many LGBT people like me, or in some ways unlike me, share this deep and abiding peace that somehow makes us able to speak truth to power. You may choose to ignore us, and say that at best we are delusional, but how many of us must bear witness before you really listen?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The result of such thinking is that faith only has a part to play in our private lives. Hence Christianity becomes a leisure pursuit."
Perhaps it is a good idea to point out that Christianity in our private lives goes beyond our immediate family, even though it is often tempting to think about our faith in individualistic terms. The church, as an organisation, is a society within society at large. It is a place where Christian values (as perceived by each tradition) are, hopefully, practised. Calling it a leisure pursuit may be unnecessarily trivialising the great importance of the social network formed by the church. It is also, perhaps, the greatest tool by which a Christian tradition may influence old and new members in a way that doesn't unfairly constrain different-believers. If a church organisation is large, then it will by itself have a large effect on the lives of many people (the RCC springs to mind), even on an international level. If it is small, well, perhaps it shouldn't yet have sway over many people? I'm reluctant to throw LGBT individuals in your tradition under the bus though, but ultimately this is the level where "God says" is most on solid ground.
Essentially, I think what you actually want is best placed within the context of evangelisation. It should be remembered that, what influence the Church has in this world stems from some past act of evangelisation. This has been no influence-lite(tm).
However, I also think it doesn't have to end there, I'd just like your opinion on this point before diving into something else in an already bloated post. With this, I just wanted to point out an existing strength the Church has which may go overlooked. Actual political interaction does become much more complicated in the practical details, since it depends strongly on the political system you find yourself in, as well as how you wish to translate your beliefs into concrete effects in society (as I understand it, you don't wish to impose your beliefs on others, which makes this interaction quite tricky and full of tradeoffs).
(dives into a last bit regardless)
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think that having a child is a gift not a right. I do not understand why God chooses to deny that gift to some who desperately want it but he does.
Yes and no. While I have sympathy for the sentiment that a child is a gift and not a right, this often crops up when someone doesn't want *them* to raise children (waves dismissively at huge, diverse group of people). It is essentially a form of emotional blackmail. These people have trouble with something, must be because God hates them and doesn't want them to do it, I think we should let them know. You clearly are sympathetic to infertile heterosexual couples, and don't think twice about it being good and even noble for them to seek at very least adoption (if not surrogacy) because "something has gone wrong". Not allowing the same for same-sex couples betrays a curious double standard on the part of God if this "access denied" message is taken as the gold standard for whether someone may raise children or not.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can come back to this now and answer it as follows:
'Because God said so' works rather better if you don't stop the sentence there, but continue on with 'and here's why he said it'.
If you mean that generally we should say this, then I quite agree.
However, if you are making an absolute statement then surely you have just made God redundant since we can work out how to live entirely without his help?
Any good parent wants their children to grow and ultimately stand on their own feet. Any good craftsman wants to create things that need as little maintainance and oversight as possible. Unless they are simply trying to give themselves a job for life.
If God really did fail to give us any sort of moral sensibility that we can use ourselves, that is a reflection on how mean in spirit the Creator is. How much he wants us intellectually and morally crippled rather than able to grow and develop.
And it also demonstrates how little God cares about morality that God wouldn't give us tools to work moral issues out in other directions than direct revalation. If God's only reason for Creation was to be worshipped then this is one thing (and says really bad things about the nature of God). If God cares about morality then producing more than one sufficient way to get to a sane morality is the only sensible thing to do. This is not the same as making God redundant.
And as far as I can see you've been ducking my comments about why you should support gay adoption if your beliefs are as you claim.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
And the main danger of sexual abuse is from heterosexual men. Mum's new boyfriend or husband. Grandad. Uncle John. Refusing to allow homosexual marriage does nothing to protect against this.
I'm glad that you didn't say, Uncle Johnny.
I'm not aware that any studies about child abuse have mentioned sexual orientation. On what are you basing this assumption?
Is it because you assume that men who have lived with women must be heterosexual? In which case I should point out that we are currently discussing gay couples bringing up their own children.
Or were you just referring to the fact that something like 97% of men are heterosexual?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Thanks Frisky. Glad to hear life in CT is as good as usual.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
This discussion isn't about some hypothetical future where same-sex couples may in good conscience make lifelong commitments to each other or dare to raise a family, these are already realities and you may choose to make life more difficult for us and our families if you really think God wants you to (again, through action or inaction).
Just to be clear again - I'm in active support of civil partnerships. I do not have a problem with gay couples making lifelong commitments. I realise that this may not be much of a consolation but I did want to make that clear.
My concerns are to do with the state recognising gay couples as a nuclear family.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
You may choose to ignore us, and say that at best we are delusional, but how many of us must bear witness before you really listen?
A good reminder about church history frisky. I agree that the church is usually at her best when she has the least amount of political power.
However, are you assuming here that 'really listen' and 'agree with' are synonyms?
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Actual political interaction does become much more complicated in the practical details, since it depends strongly on the political system you find yourself in, as well as how you wish to translate your beliefs into concrete effects in society (as I understand it, you don't wish to impose your beliefs on others, which makes this interaction quite tricky and full of tradeoffs).
You are quite right.
Eliab has described my position fairly well. If I really believed that God was arbitrary or capricious then my religious beliefs could remain entirely private. However, if I believe that he has ordered heterosexual families for the good of creation it seems very inconsistent and uncaring of me to keep quiet about it.
In short, you are right to say that I'm caught - it feels as if I'm being forced between two options I reject ... namely either try to impose my religious beliefs on society or deny my Christian faith. I reject both options.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
You clearly are sympathetic to infertile heterosexual couples, and don't think twice about it being good and even noble for them to seek at very least adoption (if not surrogacy) because "something has gone wrong". Not allowing the same for same-sex couples betrays a curious double standard on the part of God if this "access denied" message is taken as the gold standard for whether someone may raise children or not.
I don't see a double standard here. I'm saying that I think surrogacy is out for both heterosexual or homosexual couples. Gay couples could go to the doctor asking for help in conceiving too, but I'm not sure he/she will be able to be much help.
Posted by Orwell (# 16615) on
:
IngoB: As much as I'd love to tear you a new one right now, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, blessed be His Noodly Appendage, Would Really Rather Us Not Challenge The Bigoted, Misogynist, Hateful Ideas Of Others On An Empty Stomach. We should Eat, Then Go After The Bastards. As I am busy, I cannot, so I will get to you later.
A tangent: What the hell does being gay have to do with Christianity?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
Orwell, as you are new, you should understand that the board for that kind of post is the Hell Board
quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.
Placing other posters among 'The Bastards' does not belong on non-Hell boards.
Louise
Dead Horses Host*
hosting
* I would have left this to Tony as I have posted on this thread further up, but as I cant see him around, I'll put this in as a stop gap.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Just to be clear again - I'm in active support of civil partnerships. I do not have a problem with gay couples making lifelong commitments. I realise that this may not be much of a consolation but I did want to make that clear.
My concerns are to do with the state recognising gay couples as a nuclear family.
But I honestly wonder how you can say on the one hand, civil-partnership-recognition is fine, but then on the other hand 'don't recognise a gay couple as a family'??
I suppose this comes back to your notion that marriage is about child-raising? Which, as previously pointed out, bears no relationship to the current secular law. Marriages without children (and children without marriages) are considered perfectly feasble.
If you want to go down the road of labelling 'couples' with civil partnership and 'families' with marriage, then surely the logical path you have to go down is that a proportion of heterosexual couples ought also be shunted into the 'civil partnership' category, rather than dividing into the two categories purely on the basis of sexuality/gender.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I suppose this comes back to your notion that marriage is about child-raising? Which, as previously pointed out, bears no relationship to the current secular law. Marriages without children (and children without marriages) are considered perfectly feasible.
That is a fair point but I don't think it is as clear cut as that.
My understanding is that the debate back in 2004 in Australia was not over how the current legislation defined marriage but more about what the current legislation assumed.
You'd know better than me the legal quagmire we have entered into. I agree that my position is fraught with problems. However, I think that we are in a mess at the moment generally. In my mind I keep coming back to the Is --> Ought question. IMHO both sides of the debate move far to quickly from the indicative to the imperative.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes, but no-one's ever indicated a crisis over childless heterosexual couples, such as that the Marriage Act needs to be amended to insert something explicit about children or families into it to combat an alternative, non-family-based reading. It simply hasn't happened. We're all WELL aware that there are childless marriages out there, and society doesn't appear to be the least bit bothered by it or felt the need to clarify the meaning of the Marriage Act.
Which means that the angst over gay marriage cannot be sensibly portrayed as 'marriage is for families'. There isn't the slightest sign that anyone thinks that marriage should be reserved for baby-makers/family-raisers until gay couples appear on the scene, whereupon people seize upon the first obvious difference between a gay couple and a straight one. A distinction that holds up for all of 5 minutes.
The angst over gay marriage is purely and simply over its gayness. Trying to turn it into being about families and children just ignores the reality that society doesn't give a fig whether or not a heterosexual couple is having or plans to have children.
[ 10. November 2011, 03:42: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
PS When I say 'society', that includes otherwise conservative and vocal lobby groups. I can find plenty of agitation about gay marriage. But I cannot recall ever seeing anyone, anywhere advocating law reform on this issue, ie saying that intentionally childless marriages should be prevented. The family/children theory only EVER appears while talking about gay couples. It has no independent impetus.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Just to be clear again - I'm in active support of civil partnerships. I do not have a problem with gay couples making lifelong commitments. I realise that this may not be much of a consolation but I did want to make that clear.
For various reasons, I think we can, and should, do much better. The problem with your sentiment, appreciated though it is, is that while you don't mind it if same-sex couples make lifelong commitments to each other, you nonetheless are content to leave us in the legal quagmire that is the civil partnership. You may argue that it ought not be that way, perhaps you have "marriage in all but name" in mind, but "ought" is very small consolation indeed if some twit decides while your partner is on his/her deathbed that you don't qualify as family (actually, according to you I'm not) and therefore don't have the right to be at their side. Maybe my partner's family is hostile "because" and are relieved to see me hauled off? Maybe the civil partnership did give me that right, but what do I get out of suing said individual/hospital that meaningfully makes up for that? Instead, if it is clear the same-sex couples can, and do marry, there is no question what our rights are, and this is as it should be. There are so many, many other situations where we need exactly the same protections as others (and to be bound to the same responsibilities) as to make any purported differences that can be dreamt up meaningless.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Eliab has described my position fairly well. If I really believed that God was arbitrary or capricious then my religious beliefs could remain entirely private. However, if I believe that he has ordered heterosexual families for the good of creation it seems very inconsistent and uncaring of me to keep quiet about it.
In short, you are right to say that I'm caught - it feels as if I'm being forced between two options I reject ... namely either try to impose my religious beliefs on society or deny my Christian faith. I reject both options.
In the end, I would ask you to consider that, while you have a picture of how the world *ought* to be, you have the responsibility of dealing with the world as it actually *is* in a way that isn't stingy towards those of us who don't fit into this vision. I'm not sure how a minority of thriving same-sex couples should be threatening to this vision, and it seems to me that a line is being drawn which is comfortable for everyone except those who actually have to deal with the basic realities of how these policies play out in civil society.
In particular, I would ask you to consider that there are many religious groups which do celebrate the marriages of same-sex couples, this makes your desire for religious freedom doubly burdened. I could go so far as to suggest that this places a positive requirement on you to be supportive of legalised same-sex marriage in your jurisdiction with reasonable religious exemptions (for example, no forcing of a religious group to bless same-sex marriages or have their place of worship be used for such).
We're not talking about a hostile godless horde, there are faith communities which believe that same-sex marriages are one more way to heal a world which is often divided for no reason except misdirected fear. While I can accept your belief that God is never wrong, your knowledge of what God wants is inherently fallible (and I don't think you claim otherwise). If there is such a disconnect between what you believe God wants, and the actual experience of the people primarily affected by your belief and the communities that welcome them, perhaps on this point you should err on the side of religious freedom. Perhaps God intends same-sex marriages not for your community, but instead for others?
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Johnny S: quote:
Or were you just referring to the fact that something like 97% of men are heterosexual?
Yes, although depending on whose statistics you believe the percentage of homosexuals may be higher - the estimates I've seen range from 4%-10%. Given that there are more straight men around the chances of encountering an abusive heterosexual are considerably higher.
I am of course making the assumption that gay men are no more (or less) likely to be sinful than straight men, but you seem to be willing to accept this. Unless you are prepared to ban all men from looking after their own children (which would bar heterosexual men from applying for custody if their marriages break down as well) I don't see any way out of your dilemma. In Europe, such a law could be challenged under human rights legislation as it interferes with a right to family life. In the UK it could also be challenged under equality legislation, unless you are planning to ban lesbian couples from looking after/adopting/having children as well.
I would also like to point out that these hypothetical gay couples do not exist in a vacuum. They may be highly respectable, much-loved members of a family and the most suitable people to be appointed as guardians of their nieces and nephews in the event of the parents' death. Refusing to allow this restricts the freedom of the children's natural parents to choose guardians.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Yes, but no-one's ever indicated a crisis over childless heterosexual couples, such as that the Marriage Act needs to be amended to insert something explicit about children or families into it to combat an alternative, non-family-based reading. It simply hasn't happened. We're all WELL aware that there are childless marriages out there, and society doesn't appear to be the least bit bothered by it or felt the need to clarify the meaning of the Marriage Act.
... probably because no one (yet) feels that the definition of parenthood as being between mother and father needs clarifying. Why would childless marriages bring into question that, in order to be born, a baby needs a biological mother and a biological father?
BTW This discussion assumes that society is slowing moving towards gay marriage. What if it shifted the other way? In the UK the Islamic population is growing rapidly - not by conversions but by immigration and population growth. This means that it is not improbable that Muslim opinion may become a significant lobby group in UK politics in the next few decades. I admit that it is drawing a bit of a long bow, but knowing the views on marriage from all the Muslims I have spoken to (not statistically significant admittedly ) who is to say that the definition of marriage does not become more conservative in the future? If so, what would you say about the political and legal process then?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
You may argue that it ought not be that way, perhaps you have "marriage in all but name" in mind, but "ought" is very small consolation indeed if some twit decides while your partner is on his/her deathbed that you don't qualify as family (actually, according to you I'm not) and therefore don't have the right to be at their side. Maybe my partner's family is hostile "because" and are relieved to see me hauled off? Maybe the civil partnership did give me that right, but what do I get out of suing said individual/hospital that meaningfully makes up for that? Instead, if it is clear the same-sex couples can, and do marry, there is no question what our rights are, and this is as it should be. There are so many, many other situations where we need exactly the same protections as others (and to be bound to the same responsibilities) as to make any purported differences that can be dreamt up meaningless.
I don't understand this point.
People with prejudice will treat like you this whatever the law says. If, as a civil partner, you do have these rights and you think that a nurse may treat you this way, I don't see how being married will make the difference.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
While I can accept your belief that God is never wrong, your knowledge of what God wants is inherently fallible (and I don't think you claim otherwise). If there is such a disconnect between what you believe God wants, and the actual experience of the people primarily affected by your belief and the communities that welcome them, perhaps on this point you should err on the side of religious freedom. Perhaps God intends same-sex marriages not for your community, but instead for others?
It is quite true that our knowledge of what God wants must be inherently fallible. However, these are the implications that I think flow from this:
1. The same must apply to your knowledge of God.
2. If this is about how God made the world then the one possibility not open to us is that he wants it for some communities but not others. It's all or nothing, surely?
3. Jesus said quite a lot about following him will mean being a minority. (Of course Gay Christians will say that has been them for the past few hundred years!)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I am of course making the assumption that gay men are no more (or less) likely to be sinful than straight men, but you seem to be willing to accept this. Unless you are prepared to ban all men from looking after their own children (which would bar heterosexual men from applying for custody if their marriages break down as well) I don't see any way out of your dilemma. In Europe, such a law could be challenged under human rights legislation as it interferes with a right to family life. In the UK it could also be challenged under equality legislation, unless you are planning to ban lesbian couples from looking after/adopting/having children as well.
But I'm not the one trying to introduce new legislation at all. I'm the one asking the legislation to stay as it is.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
You may argue that it ought not be that way, perhaps you have "marriage in all but name" in mind, but "ought" is very small consolation indeed if some twit decides while your partner is on his/her deathbed that you don't qualify as family (actually, according to you I'm not) and therefore don't have the right to be at their side. Maybe my partner's family is hostile "because" and are relieved to see me hauled off? Maybe the civil partnership did give me that right, but what do I get out of suing said individual/hospital that meaningfully makes up for that? Instead, if it is clear the same-sex couples can, and do marry, there is no question what our rights are, and this is as it should be. There are so many, many other situations where we need exactly the same protections as others (and to be bound to the same responsibilities) as to make any purported differences that can be dreamt up meaningless.
I don't understand this point.
People with prejudice will treat like you this whatever the law says. If, as a civil partner, you do have these rights and you think that a nurse may treat you this way, I don't see how being married will make the difference.
While there is some truth to what you are saying, prejudiced people need to be told firmly and quickly what the situation is in terms that carry weight with them while they are still in the deer-in-headlights mode. When they're confronted with a same-sex couple or partner, their brains are looking for a path of least resistance, because they don't actually want to deal with you. Telling them you're married has a much greater chance of putting them in the autopilot they use with people in general by hammering the point home that you are people in general, and can be gotten rid of by being dealt with as such. No special boxes to tick, no regulations to fumble over.
Whether or not you accept this argument depends to a great extent on whether you believe people tend to be arbitrarily evil for no reason, or that often they are simply very afraid and need simple guidance in order to avoid doing horrible things.
Separate but equal is a license to discriminate, it indicates to the public that these people are "less", so it would be wrong to treat them as equals. We just can't bring ourselves to even call them by the same names we use for people who are similarly situated. I'd prefer to drink from the same fountain as everyone else.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
While I can accept your belief that God is never wrong, your knowledge of what God wants is inherently fallible (and I don't think you claim otherwise). If there is such a disconnect between what you believe God wants, and the actual experience of the people primarily affected by your belief and the communities that welcome them, perhaps on this point you should err on the side of religious freedom. Perhaps God intends same-sex marriages not for your community, but instead for others?
It is quite true that our knowledge of what God wants must be inherently fallible. However, these are the implications that I think flow from this:
1. The same must apply to your knowledge of God.
This is true, but in my case I'm not trying to constrain your freedom in any way other than in the trivial sense that if I were civilly married, my partner and I would have to be treated as such for these purposes in civil society, something you would take for granted for yourself. You would be welcome, for non-civil purposes, to consider my marriage invalid, as is sometimes the case with those remarried after divorce.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. If this is about how God made the world then the one possibility not open to us is that he wants it for some communities but not others. It's all or nothing, surely?
If by it you mean salvation, then I agree. I'd like to point out that salvation does not mean that we have to cut off bits of ourselves using a cookie cutter to get into the "right" shape. Much less the bits of others we happen to be offended by. This is not to say that knowledge of salvation does not stir us into action, but that these actions are unique to each of us (how could it be any other way?). We may find that the world is made new in unexpected ways.
There is a certain amount of good faith required in discerning God's will when someone is "different" from the rest. The same applies to both of us, of course, and I realize that you also have a point, and very good reason to be concerned.
However, as I've said previously, I have seen, and been given something wonderful. I can do no else but to accept it gratefully and with care and celebrate it with others. You have also seen and been given something wonderful. Ultimately, we can only share our stories, and try to discern something of that which we have been given in each other.
We are different people, and we have different needs. Yet we are all people. Some couples are heterosexual, and some couples are homosexual, but we may all be called to marriage. Whether we have heard this call is best determined by those closest to us. This is not to say our stories are the same, it is just that we share them on equal footing.
What I'm trying to say is that God is mostly likely much more creative than we expect, and that salvation isn't a return to some supposed utopia which happens to be comfortable for some and arbitrarily, unavoidably and unfairly unbearable for others.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
3. Jesus said quite a lot about following him will mean being a minority. (Of course Gay Christians will say that has been them for the past few hundred years!)
His yoke is also quite light apparently. I suspect the responsibility of hoping and/or ensuring your fellow humans remain second class citizens sometimes weighs heavily on one's shoulders.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Johnny S: quote:
But I'm not the one trying to introduce new legislation at all. I'm the one asking the legislation to stay as it is.
You seem to be arguing that gay men should not be allowed to marry because they shouldn't be allowed to have families. Or because they can't have families? I'm beginning to lose track of exactly what general (non-religious) objections you are raising. But if you really believe that gay men shouldn't be allowed to look after children (whether their own or anyone else's) you do need new legislation. Because at the moment there isn't anything stopping them - or any unmarried heterosexuals, for that matter.
I am merely trying to point out that whether or not you are considered to be a fit person to be in charge of a child is a completely separate issue to the question of who should be allowed to marry, and I don't think it's really relevant to this discussion anyway. The only question the vicar asked us before we got married was 'Are you married to anyone else?' (he could see from our birth certificates that we weren't brother and sister).
If heterosexuals can get married with the intention of never having children, getting divorced a few months later or continuing an adulterous affair, I don't think there's much more damage that homosexuals can do to the institution. And I'm not worried about whether my own marriage survives - that's my problem (and my husband's) and I don't feel the need to shuffle responsibility for it off to anyone else.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But I'm not the one trying to introduce new legislation at all. I'm the one asking the legislation to stay as it is.
You mean your comments about gay adoption and surrogate parents shouldn't be taken seriously?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Separate but equal is a license to discriminate, it indicates to the public that these people are "less", so it would be wrong to treat them as equals. We just can't bring ourselves to even call them by the same names we use for people who are similarly situated. I'd prefer to drink from the same fountain as everyone else.
I hear what you say Frisky.
I don't really have anything more to say.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
You seem to be arguing that gay men should not be allowed to marry because they shouldn't be allowed to have families. Or because they can't have families? I'm beginning to lose track of exactly what general (non-religious) objections you are raising. But if you really believe that gay men shouldn't be allowed to look after children (whether their own or anyone else's) you do need new legislation. Because at the moment there isn't anything stopping them - or any unmarried heterosexuals, for that matter.
I think those are reasons to oppose gay marriage (considering the provision for civil partnerships).
However, I do not want to actively lobby for gay couples not to be able to adopt.
While there is a degree of inconsistency the difference between the two should be pretty clear.
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If heterosexuals can get married with the intention of never having children, getting divorced a few months later or continuing an adulterous affair
Yes, but my point is that they have to have their fingers crossed when they do. In fact when I got married I had to make promises against all three - and that was in a normal CofE service.
The civil law cannot make people view marriage in a particular way but it can hold up an ideal.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
PS When I say 'society', that includes otherwise conservative and vocal lobby groups. I can find plenty of agitation about gay marriage. But I cannot recall ever seeing anyone, anywhere advocating law reform on this issue, ie saying that intentionally childless marriages should be prevented. The family/children theory only EVER appears while talking about gay couples. It has no independent impetus.
To be fair, my understanding is that the Catholic Church would annul a marriage entered into with the intention of never having children.
Even there, though, a marriage would usually be formally annulled only at the suit of one the parties. If both are content with the situation, their putative marrriage is, in every practical sense, good against the rest of the world, and its invalidity is an issue only between them and their God.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
I guess the standard of whether the parenting argument is a legitimate concern or merely a pretense is to ask "if same sex couples could actually be shown to be better parents than their opposite sex counterparts, would that change your mind to favor same-sex marriage?" Going further, would such a finding also induce you to advocate withdrawing state recognition from opposite-sex marriages on the grounds that same-sex parenting is the superior option?
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
That link needs fixing
Linky
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I guess the standard of whether the parenting argument is a legitimate concern or merely a pretense is to ask "if same sex couples could actually be shown to be better parents than their opposite sex counterparts, would that change your mind to favor same-sex marriage?"
(Thanks for the link Frisky.)
Leaving aside the issue that this study is about lesbian couples only, it was a study of couples using AI.
Now AI is an extremely expensive procedure which means that this study was only on children brought up in wealthy environments.
The fact that wealthy kids tend to do better than poor kids is hardly ground-breaking research. I hope this was looked at in the original research quoted by TIME.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now AI is an extremely expensive procedure which means that this study was only on children brought up in wealthy environments.
AI costs £500-£1000 per cycle privately for the recommended 6 cycles (and that's gouging it a bit - other quoted rates include $300-500). Hardly extremely expensive by medical standards (it's cheaper for a course than a gastric band). Or by the standards of raising a child. And is, of course, likely to need fewer cycles for lesbians than for people who need artificial insemination due to medical problems.
Calling it extremely expensive is simply untrue.
quote:
The fact that wealthy kids tend to do better than poor kids is hardly ground-breaking research. I hope this was looked at in the original research quoted by TIME.
The fact that engaged parents do better than unengaged is even less groundbreaking. And almost every single lesbian parent is engaged - getting pregnant was a choice.
Which doesn't address that you've ducked the question. If the evidence shows that lesbians make better parents than straight couples will you withdraw your objections?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Which doesn't address that you've ducked the question. If the evidence shows that lesbians make better parents than straight couples will you withdraw your objections?
Or adopt the position that only lesbians should be allowed to married?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Now AI is an extremely expensive procedure which means that this study was only on children brought up in wealthy environments.
Nonsense - my SIL's sister is a lesbian with two children. Her and her partner are by no means well off.
Her boys are just the same age as my two - and very fine young men they are too.
(eta - Interestingly, she is one of six children - three straight, three gay. Their Dad was homosexual)
[ 12. November 2011, 13:47: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
AI is only expensive if you have doctors do it and want either anonymous donors or some kind of special quality control of sperm - which is only neccessary if there is a medical problem preventing normal conception. If you don't care about that you can do it yourself for free. Its not exactly difficult (though it might be embarrasing). There is no need to involve professionals at all.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
There have been people who were quite successful using turkey basters.
[ 12. November 2011, 21:59: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
AI is only expensive if you have doctors do it and want either anonymous donors or some kind of special quality control of sperm - which is only neccessary if there is a medical problem preventing normal conception. If you don't care about that you can do it yourself for free. Its not exactly difficult (though it might be embarrasing). There is no need to involve professionals at all.
That's true, but I'm not sure how relevant it is to the study quoted in the article. The sample seems to be of those who had AI done professionally.
Going on the examples given above that looks like 3k - 6k for each attempt to conceive. I wouldn't say that it puts it out of the reach of most of the population but it clearly does exclude those on low income. I know a lot of people locally who simply could not afford that, not close.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If the evidence shows that lesbians make better parents than straight couples will you withdraw your objections?
At the level of civil legislation - yes, absolutely.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
(eta - Interestingly, she is one of six children - three straight, three gay. Their Dad was homosexual)
You'll have to help me out here Boogie - what is the bit that is interesting here?
That a gay guy produces way more gay children than statistically expected?
or that a gay guy manages to have 6 children?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
]You'll have to help me out here Boogie - what is the bit that is interesting here?
That a gay guy produces way more gay children than statistically expected?
or that a gay guy manages to have 6 children?
He didn't come out as gay until after all of his thee children had done so. He was over sixty and it was a difficult The whole family are very dear to me and probably the reason why I am so vociferace in my belief that we are born with our sexuality and don't choose it.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
If the evidence shows that lesbians make better parents than straight couples will you withdraw your objections?
At the level of civil legislation - yes, absolutely.
Would you also then argue that the state should no longer recognize opposite-sex marriages? After all, if your objection to same-sex marriages is that same-sex couples are inferior parents relative to opposite-sex couples, wouldn't the same 'logic' work in reverse?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Would you also then argue that the state should no longer recognize opposite-sex marriages? After all, if your objection to same-sex marriages is that same-sex couples are inferior parents relative to opposite-sex couples, wouldn't the same 'logic' work in reverse?
Hold on, let's get the peer reviewed evidence first. For a start we need to agree on what constitutes evidence of better parents in the first place. Plus correlation versus causation.
The report you quoted suggested that gay parents were more involved because their children were more likely to face prejudice and discrimination.
Are you going to lobby the government that we should abuse all children to improve the parenting the children receive? " 'Cos that's what the report says."
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Would you also then argue that the state should no longer recognize opposite-sex marriages? After all, if your objection to same-sex marriages is that same-sex couples are inferior parents relative to opposite-sex couples, wouldn't the same 'logic' work in reverse?
Hold on, let's get the peer reviewed evidence first. For a start we need to agree on what constitutes evidence of better parents in the first place. Plus correlation versus causation.
It's a hypothetical question. If there were evidence that opposite-sex parenting were inferior to same-sex parenting, would it logically follow that opposite-sex couples should not be recognized as married by the state?
The most fascinating thing about the paragraph above is that when advocating the lesser status of others in the eyes of the law you consider your unconfirmed personal prejudice to be sufficient reason, but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof. I vaguely recall some obscure Christian teaching that starts out "Do unto others . . . " How does that end again?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
See also "the worst kind of discrimination".
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof.
That's not fair.
I'm saying, "Yes, if there was evidence that gay couples made for better parents this would cause me to rethink my position on gay marriage, but I'd want it to be well established evidence."
I think that is reasonable enough. I'm certain that you would say the same about any study published by a Christian think-tank.
Any study of this sort is useful for informing public opinion but it is still just a snap shot of how things currently are. No research can ever tell us how things should be. This is simply outside of the scope of objective research.
I'm sure that if anyone presented to you the papers produced by groups like The Christian Institute (UK) you would, rightly, be rather sceptical in how you viewed them. All I'm saying is that this cuts both ways.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The report you quoted suggested that gay parents were more involved because their children were more likely to face prejudice and discrimination.
Are you going to lobby the government that we should abuse all children to improve the parenting the children receive? " 'Cos that's what the report says."
Umm, I think you might want to rethink using the prejudice of communities as an excuse to question the parenting fitness of a couple. It has been made elsewhere fairly recently.
US judge's mixed marriage refusal [BBC, 16 Oct 2009]
From the article
quote:
Keith Bardwell, of Tangipahoa Parish in Louisiana, denied racism but said mixed-race children were not readily accepted by their parents' communities.
...
He said he had discussed the issue with both black and white people before making his decision.
"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," he said "I think those children suffer and I won't help put them through it."
Otherwise, he seems to be a-okay with black people
quote:
He said he had "piles and piles of black friends" but just did not believe in "mixing the races".
"They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else," he said.
You might try to argue that this story was not about adoption, but then you'd be missing the point.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof.
That's not fair.
I'm saying, "Yes, if there was evidence that gay couples made for better parents this would cause me to rethink my position on gay marriage, but I'd want it to be well established evidence."
Crœsos' question, as a hypothetical one, is fair, because it tries to determine whether you would simply shift the goal-posts again if utterly incontrovertible evidence were presented to you. By how much and in what direction are the goal-posts going to shift?
As far as scientific evidence goes, the most authoritative bodies in the field agree that current evidence is behind same-sex couples being at very least as good as opposite-sex couples in terms of parenting.
Here's an amicus brief filed by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and the California Psychological Association
Brief of the APA etc. in Proposition 8 trial
Starting at page 19 :
quote:
There Is No Scientific Basis for Concluding That Gay and Lesbian Parents Are Any Less Fit or Capable Than Heterosexual Parents, or That Their Children Are Any Less Psychologically Healthy and Well Adjusted.
... Page 24 ...
Amici emphasize that the abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific researchers disagree. Thus, after careful scrutiny of decades of research in this area, the American Psychological Association concluded in its recent Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children: "There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: Lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children” and that “Research has shown that adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish.”
The National Association of Social Workers has determined that “The most striking feature of the research on lesbian mothers, gay fathers, and their children is the absence of pathological findings. The second most striking feature is how similar the groups of gay and lesbian parents and their children are to heterosexual parents and their children that were included in the studies.”
Most recently, in adopting an official Position Statement in support of legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage, the American Psychiatric Association observed that "no research has shown that the children raised by lesbians and gay men are less well adjusted than those reared within heterosexual relationships."
These statements by the leading associations of experts in this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests otherwise.
I'm not sure what standard of evidence you require to "rethink" your position, but it seems to me the burden of proof is on you at this point.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof.
That's not fair.
I'm saying, "Yes, if there was evidence that gay couples made for better parents this would cause me to rethink my position on gay marriage, but I'd want it to be well established evidence."
Now the follow up question. "How much evidence would it take?" Because as far as I know, almost all the evidence out there says that gay and lesbian parents are at least as good as straight ones. (I've said why I think this is so).
quote:
I'm sure that if anyone presented to you the papers produced by groups like The Christian Institute (UK) you would, rightly, be rather sceptical in how you viewed them. All I'm saying is that this cuts both ways.
I'd be as sceptical of papers by The Christian Institute as I would ones by Stonewall.
However Creosus is demonstrating organisations such as the American Psychiatric Association. Hardly fringe or single issue campaigners. What are your standards of evidence? Or will you keep objecting and shifting the ground?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Or will you keep objecting and shifting the ground?
I don't think the ‘shifting ground' objection is fair. Johnny S's objections aren't evidence based. They are based on authority - he believes that God has (in scripture and/or tradition) said no to same-sex marriages and must therefore have a good reason for saying no.
It is not unreasonable for him to speculate that this reason might have something to do with parenting or modelling gender roles, and then when the evidence fails to support that to accept that this cannot be the reason, and it must be something else. His objection was never based on an argument from parenting ability. The argument about parenting was speculatively based on his objection.
The question for me is not whether this or that possible explanation of the reasons behind the scriptural prohibition are good or made, but whether it is right to make law based on the scriptural on people who do not accept that prohibition at all, in a way that restricts their freedom out of all proportion to any harm that they could possibly do to any but themselves. And I can't see how it could be. I don't want to be prevented from marrying the person I love, no matter how sincerely you* believe that God has told you that I'm making a bad choice. So how can I justify doing that very thing to somebody else?
*(generic 'you')
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Umm, I think you might want to rethink using the prejudice of communities as an excuse to question the parenting fitness of a couple. It has been made elsewhere fairly recently.
You misunderstood me here. I was using that as an example of something that could be drawn from the report but shouldn't.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Crœsos' question, as a hypothetical one, is fair, because it tries to determine whether you would simply shift the goal-posts again if utterly incontrovertible evidence were presented to you. By how much and in what direction are the goal-posts going to shift?
Sure, and what I was getting at was whether the deal is reciprocal or not?
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
As far as scientific evidence goes, the most authoritative bodies in the field agree that current evidence is behind same-sex couples being at very least as good as opposite-sex couples in terms of parenting.
Here's an amicus brief filed by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy and the California Psychological Association
Brief of the APA etc. in Proposition 8 trial
Thanks a lot for this (sincerely). I'll have a read of it carefully over the next few days and get back to you after I've looked at properly.
My initial reaction (having just glanced at the first couple of pages) is that I'm surprised by how many times the phrase 'Scientific evidence' is used. (Is this an Americanism?) I could almost hear Sheldon Cooper in my ear every time I read it - "The Social Sciences are largely hokum!" - how can a study on parenting possibly be called scientific?
Still, it looks good, objective, and well researched so I'll give it a read.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The question for me is not whether this or that possible explanation of the reasons behind the scriptural prohibition are good or made, but whether it is right to make law based on the scriptural on people who do not accept that prohibition at all, in a way that restricts their freedom out of all proportion to any harm that they could possibly do to any but themselves. And I can't see how it could be. I don't want to be prevented from marrying the person I love, no matter how sincerely you* believe that God has told you that I'm making a bad choice. So how can I justify doing that very thing to somebody else?
Although I don't agree with you entirely, this basically is why I'm interested in the research about parenting. It would be unlikely to shift my personal convictions but it could well change my mind about the laws of a secular society.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Whether God creates people gay, transgendered, or hermaphrodite or whether these states are defects somehow not attributable to God is a red herring IMHO.
Whether we consider congenital (or any other) blindness a defect or not has no effect whatsoever on our willingness to teach blind people Braille, or to take other steps for them to be productive and fulfilled in society. I don't hear anyone saying that because they are blind, it must be God's will that they shall not read. Even if the blind cannot read the way we do (or crippled people walk as we do), we don't begrudge them an approximation or equivalent.
But that's what the opponents of gay marriage imply (along with all other foot-draggers who wish that gays would just forget that they are sexual beings and carry on like eunuchs all their lives). Can anyone point out where my analogy breaks down?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I am (negatively) impressed by your ability to say that "Scientific evidence isn't really scientific evidence" but it would be a help if you actually read some of the evidence before saying that, or we won't believe what you have to say about it.
"My mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts" is a bit closer to where you seem to be.
Anyway, I'll throw "The Seven Habits of Effective Lesbian Parents" into the pot again, so you can ignore the article again.
It is non-scientific to the extent that it is anecdotal, with passing reference to scientific evidence. Is that non-scientific enough for you?
Sorry, edited to add that this is directed at Johnny, not Alogon.
[ 15. November 2011, 01:24: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I am (negatively) impressed by your ability to say that "Scientific evidence isn't really scientific evidence" but it would be a help if you actually read some of the evidence before saying that, or we won't believe what you have to say about it.
No, I'm saying that it isn't scientific evidence at all. That doesn't nullify the research, but it is incorrect to call most of the stuff cited as scientific. (Unless, as I asked, if this is down to an American usage of the word 'Scientific'.)
One report cited about orientation is based entirely on asking gay men and women to comment on their perception about their orientation. That is an entirely worthwhile thing to do and I can't really see how you can do a study without including this approach. However, it is not a scientific study. Saying that is a scientific study is trying to imply that the conclusions are based on science, when they are not. Doesn't make them wrong though.
I wasn't trying to discredit the research but rather trying to be clear about what type of evidence is being presented.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"My mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts" is a bit closer to where you seem to be.
Same question to you as to the others - is this reciprocal? i.e. Would a study pointing the other way change your mind?
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"The Seven Habits of Effective Lesbian Parents" into the pot again, so you can ignore the article again.
I'll read it after I've finished the Amicus report, thanks.
On a thread like this when frequently I've got 5 people all arguing against me please do not assume that I'm ignoring a link you offered. I'm genuinely interested but have limited time. I think that is reasonable.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Brief of the APA etc. in Proposition 8 trial
Okay, now I've read the report in full I can comment on it. (And then I'll have to go and read HB's link!)
Overall - it seems a pretty comprehensive and persuasive report. I would like to know a lot more about the various research projects that it is collating, but I suppose that inevitably must come down to trust. It has certainly challenged some of preconceptions - especially about Lesbian parents. I'm going to have think further about this and will read HB's link about Lesbian parenting.
Concerns - I think the report does raise issues though:
1. Gay Fathers - what becomes clear on closer inspection is that this is really a thorough report about Lesbian parenting. On several occasions (e.g. p 21, 23) the report acknowledges that there is very little data on Gay Dads. What really surprised me was how that was swept under the carpet (e.g. p 23). I would expect them to conclude something like this - "There is good evidence that Lesbian couples make for good parents and until we discover anything to the contrary about gay couples we think it is safe to assume the same for them too." Basically I thought that a report putting so much store on being objective would point out the assumption. But it doesn't. The authors bend over backwards not to allow that option. It reads very much like a report in response to Prop 8 which isn't really ready.
It wouldn't have changed to substance of the report but I would have had a far greater respect for their claim to objectivity if they had.
After I read that part it struck me how the report keeps making assertions about 'Gay & Lesbian couples' - without making it clear that this has been shown for Lesbian couples but not convincingly for gay couples. I think that it is a pretty huge assumption to move from one group to the other. Especially since mothers are, traditionally, seen as being more naturally inclined to parenthood.
2. Benefits of marriage (p 14) - this confused me. On this thread it has been pointed out to me (by Orfeo and others) that there isn't really any great benefit (as far as the state is concerned) anymore in being married. And yet one of the central planks of this report is that there is. Indeed, that children benefit from living with married parents.
Does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should be proposing greater support of marriage by the state in general? For example that adoption should only be by married couples?
3. Single Parents (p 20) - likewise I was struck by how direct the report was about the (claimed) deficiencies of single parenting.
Again, does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should also be lobbying government to stop allowing single people to adopt?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whether we consider congenital (or any other) blindness a defect or not has no effect whatsoever on our willingness to teach blind people Braille, or to take other steps for them to be productive and fulfilled in society. I don't hear anyone saying that because they are blind, it must be God's will that they shall not read. Even if the blind cannot read the way we do (or crippled people walk as we do), we don't begrudge them an approximation or equivalent.
But that's what the opponents of gay marriage imply (along with all other foot-draggers who wish that gays would just forget that they are sexual beings and carry on like eunuchs all their lives). Can anyone point out where my analogy breaks down?
It's an excellent analogy. In fact none of us are physically the same. We all need to work with what we have. Others telling us that we are 'defective' isn't just unhelpful - it's cruel.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. Gay Fathers - what becomes clear on closer inspection is that this is really a thorough report about Lesbian parenting. On several occasions (e.g. p 21, 23) the report acknowledges that there is very little data on Gay Dads. What really surprised me was how that was swept under the carpet (e.g. p 23). I would expect them to conclude something like this - "There is good evidence that Lesbian couples make for good parents and until we discover anything to the contrary about gay couples we think it is safe to assume the same for them too." Basically I thought that a report putting so much store on being objective would point out the assumption. But it doesn't. The authors bend over backwards not to allow that option. It reads very much like a report in response to Prop 8 which isn't really ready.
It wouldn't have changed to substance of the report but I would have had a far greater respect for their claim to objectivity if they had.
After I read that part it struck me how the report keeps making assertions about 'Gay & Lesbian couples' - without making it clear that this has been shown for Lesbian couples but not convincingly for gay couples. I think that it is a pretty huge assumption to move from one group to the other. Especially since mothers are, traditionally, seen as being more naturally inclined to parenthood.
While this is true to some extent, the report does say there are relatively fewer studies on parenting by gay male couples rather than lesbian couples, several do exist (as you point out, and as mentioned in the amicus brief). The studies of parenting by male/male couples have been consistent in showing no significant difference, expecting a sudden rash of scary reports of male/male parenting isn't defensible, at most any difference would end up being minor (one way or the other). If you take into account that the studies on lesbian parents weaken essentialist arguments about the intrinsic magic of male/female couples, replacing this with female-only intrinsic magic is immediately suspect, given the studies that do exist for male/male parenting. At this point, I think it's safe to say that the individual circumstances of a couple are the overriding factors in good parenting, not whether it's a heterosexual or homosexual couple.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
2. Benefits of marriage (p 14) - this confused me. On this thread it has been pointed out to me (by Orfeo and others) that there isn't really any great benefit (as far as the state is concerned) anymore in being married. And yet one of the central planks of this report is that there is. Indeed, that children benefit from living with married parents.
Does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should be proposing greater support of marriage by the state in general? For example that adoption should only be by married couples?
3. Single Parents (p 20) - likewise I was struck by how direct the report was about the (claimed) deficiencies of single parenting.
Again, does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should also be lobbying government to stop allowing single people to adopt?
The Proposition 8 case has been interesting, because a conservative case for same-sex marriage has been made throughout the proceedings, possibly this is why there is some resonance there for you (I'm only assuming conservative view in terms of relationships at this point)?
I think you could argue for marriage for as many as possible which would include marriage for same-sex couples. That is, arguing against unreasonable barriers to marriage. But society has to be able to deal with all sorts of relationships. Benefiting married couples to the exclusion or even detriment of non-married couples and individuals could turn out worse for society, one would have to be very careful. For example, structuring state assistance in such a way as to "force" (strongly nudge) single individuals (particularly single parents) into marriages that end up not working is no way of strengthening the state or marriage. Basically, I think there is a point here, but that actually creating policy from this is not that simple at all.
As for single parents and unmarried couples adopting, I would again like to point out that the individual circumstances of each parenting arrangement is probably the most determining factor for whether an adoption is going to work well or not. If there is some difference for single parents or unmarried couples, you could argue that there must be some negative weighting when it comes to adoption, but barring adoption entirely seems like gross overreaction to me. Marriage isn't something magical that will make any couple superior parents to all other parenting arrangements, it may just be one factor in a great list of factors. It may well not even be one of the strongest indicators of suitability. For example, which would you prefer, a couple who married after a week and are trying to adopt after a month, or a couple who have been together and cohabiting for 10 years and then trying to adopt? Some single individuals would also make fantastic parents. Shrinking the pool of available parents for adoption by overemphasising one consideration is no way of going about things.
Other posters have pointed out that in some cases, non-married couple adoption and single parent adoption are also essential for several reasons (e.g.: parents have, in case of their death, entrusted the child to said individual(s); child of one partner in an unmarried couple where the official parent dies and the other de facto parent needs to adopt).
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
On this thread it has been pointed out to me (by Orfeo and others) that there isn't really any great benefit (as far as the state is concerned) anymore in being married. And yet one of the central planks of this report is that there is. Indeed, that children benefit from living with married parents.
From this I conclude that you've been reading so much you haven't actually understood the issues. There is limited financial benefit in marrying. But there is a huge social and stability benefit. Concrete examples of this have been pointed out to you. Things like visitation rights matter.
quote:
Does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should be proposing greater support of marriage by the state in general? For example that adoption should only be by married couples?
I don't see why supporters of gay marriage should be proposing that children in orphanages be denied any parents at all. To do so would be to try to fit the world onto a bed of Procrustes.
quote:
Again, does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should also be lobbying government to stop allowing single people to adopt?
No it doesn't. But this brings us on to my serious theological objection to Conservative Christianity as as far as I can tell that question could only have come from a Conservative Christian or a lunatic radical.
Most Conservative Christians I know and all of those I have seen much of in this thread seek to find the platonic ideal. And then seek to say "That is the perfect model. And we should strive for purity." And because something is obviously impure it must be rejected, even if it is significantly better than the alternatives. It, in this imperfect world, makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
This is a stone cold rejection of Grace. It is a denial that the Light can be anywhere the light is not pure. It is a rejection of sitting down to dinner with publicans, tax collectors, and prostitutes.
Are single parents worse at raising kids than married couples? Generally yes (there's a significant difference between single unmarried and single due to divorce). But what alternative would you offer? Mandatory adoption for kids of single parents by adoptive couples? That would be a sick joke. Magdalene Laundries and taking the babies away? You're just making the problems worse. Single parents beat no parents. Instead, nurture the good rather than focus on condemning.
We are trying step by step to make the world a better place. Objections that it won't be perfect are not constructive and just get in the way. No living entity is perfect. If you want perfection, look at a blank sheet of paper. Or the vast cold emptiness of space. Life is growth and change - and that is not and can never be perfect. And to reject the less than perfect just for that is, as I said, to rejectlight and grace.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
but as soon as your own legal standing is brought into question it's all "peer reviewed evidence" and "correlation versus causation" and standards of proof.
That's not fair.
I'm saying, "Yes, if there was evidence that gay couples made for better parents this would cause me to rethink my position on gay marriage, but I'd want it to be well established evidence."
Applying the standards you expect others to live by to yourself is almost the definition of "fair". Your argument against same-sex marriage is that while same-sex couples may be adequate parents, their parenting is necessarily inferior to that of an opposite-sex couple. The real question is whether "well established evidence" that same-sex parenting is the superior option would make you rethink your position on straight marriage. After all, if opposite-sex parenting is shown to be the inferior option, wouldn't the same logic apply to the legal recognition of straight couples as "married"?
This position, of course, is freighted with a whole bunch of assumptions, like the assumption that legally recognized marriage is premised on parenting ability and that individual parenting ability can be determined by membership in broad demographic categories.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My initial reaction (having just glanced at the first couple of pages) is that I'm surprised by how many times the phrase 'Scientific evidence' is used. (Is this an Americanism?) I could almost hear Sheldon Cooper in my ear every time I read it - "The Social Sciences are largely hokum!" - how can a study on parenting possibly be called scientific?
If you reject psychology as a legitimate science, what would you consider "well established evidence"? This seems to be the predictable coda to your claim that you can be convinced by strong evidence; namely that any possible evidence can't be considered "strong".
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Again, does this mean that supporters of gay marriage should also be lobbying government to stop allowing single people to adopt?
No, the only one arguing that the average parenting ability of demographic groups should be used as a blanket justification for that group's inferior standing under the law is you.
It should be noted that most governments already permit single people to adopt. Remember that the most common adoptions are by non-parental relatives. Are you really arguing that children shouldn't be given to the custody of their (willing) uncle after mom and dad are devoured by wolverines (for example) just because that uncle isn't married?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Whether we consider congenital (or any other) blindness a defect or not has no effect whatsoever on our willingness to teach blind people Braille, or to take other steps for them to be productive and fulfilled in society. I don't hear anyone saying that because they are blind, it must be God's will that they shall not read. Even if the blind cannot read the way we do (or crippled people walk as we do), we don't begrudge them an approximation or equivalent.
But that's what the opponents of gay marriage imply (along with all other foot-draggers who wish that gays would just forget that they are sexual beings and carry on like eunuchs all their lives). Can anyone point out where my analogy breaks down?
Sure. The point of Braille is to give access to a particular visual skill - reading - to the blind. To make the analogy, we must hence ask what the purpose ("skill") is of marriage. The traditional answer is that marriage is primarily ordered to human procreation, the begetting and raising of children. "Gay marriage" hence does not provide an approximation or equivalent at all. Rather it copies some accidentals while not addressing the essence. Translated back into your analogy, it is like filling a blind person's home with regular books and newspapers, so that they can sit in their armchair, book in hand, and can pretend to read. The proper analogy to Braille in the traditional view rather would be something like an orphanage. That deals with the essence of marriage in a non-marriage way.
This implies that the only real argument for "gay marriage" is actually the potential adoption of children by the gay couple. I don't have too much of an issue with that, if indeed this improves the lot of the children in question. I may even be convinced to drop the scare quotes around "gay marriage", if child rearing was the declared purpose of the institution of gay marriage. Just as I don't put scare quotes around "reading Braille" (these were quote quotes ). It would be highly entertaining to see this approach in the wild, I think it would confuse the heck out of both sides...
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Ingo, I'm afraid this thread may tend to conflate religious and civil marriage. Just to be clear, from the civil side marriage or equivalent civil unions confer on the couple an array of legal protections and rights. These are crucially important to a committed couple, gay or straight. Do you maintain that the civil rights emanating from marriage are likewise just a matter of "pretend" on the part of gay couples who seek legally recognised marriage?
I understand that the thread is ostensibly talking about the "Christian line" on same-gender marriage, but I would submit in fact that one can't separate the rights associated with modern civil marriage from the Christian line, because it is largely the Church (broadly defined) that opposes the civil right of same-gender couples to have access to legal marriages, whether officiated by a civil servant or a minister of religion.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
I'm not sure how often I have to repeat myself on that particular point. I consider it entirely legitimate for the state to recognize various "significant relationships" in order to grant benefits, legal protection, or whatever. I just wish that everybody would stop referring to this as "marriage" (unless it is one). If the state decides that the common good is served by granting something to gay civil unions, then I may agree or disagree. But I certainly do not disagree on principle. Furthermore, I think it would be prudent in the current situation to have a uniform law for what is granted to all "significant relationships", including marriages. But then to to have another set of laws to regulate what is granted to those begetting and raising children.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I'm not sure how often I have to repeat myself on that particular point. I consider it entirely legitimate for the state to recognize various "significant relationships" in order to grant benefits, legal protection, or whatever. I just wish that everybody would stop referring to this as "marriage" (unless it is one). If the state decides that the common good is served by granting something to gay civil unions, then I may agree or disagree. But I certainly do not disagree on principle. Furthermore, I think it would be prudent in the current situation to have a uniform law for what is granted to all "significant relationships", including marriages. But then to to have another set of laws to regulate what is granted to those begetting and raising children.
There are a several reasons you have to keep repeating yourself.
1) Throwing a hissy fit over nomenclature has often been used as a pretext to deny "benefits, legal protection, or whatever" in this context. The whole 'I'd like to grant you legal equality, but only if you acknowledge you're not as good as me' thing grates after a while.
2) The state does not make marriage contingent upon childbearing. To insist that it start doing so, but only in this particular case, smacks of special pleading.
3) The fact that there's really been no pressure for the state to create new legal categories for marriages that it legally recognizes but which are considered invalid by various religious groups (remarriages after divorce, inter-faith marriages, inter-racial marriages, etc.) gives the impression that such arguments are driven by animus against including homosexuals under the law rather than some high-minded principle which would apply equally to a whole bunch of other groups but for some reason hasn't been a problem until now.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
IngoB: quote:
I consider it entirely legitimate for the state to recognize various "significant relationships" in order to grant benefits, legal protection, or whatever. I just wish that everybody would stop referring to this as "marriage" (unless it is one).
Sometimes I wish that people would stop referring to the orgy of consumerism between 25 December and 1 January as Christmas unless their celebration of it includes proper observence of Advent and attendance at Midnight Mass. It's not gonna happen, because language doesn't work like that. Ask the Academie Francaise if you don't believe me, they've been fighting against language change for centuries to no avail.
It seems excessive to campaign against gay marriage simply because you disagree with using one word for both sacramental and non-sacramental relationships. There are plenty of other examples of words with more than one meaning.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
1) Throwing a hissy fit over nomenclature has often been used as a pretext to deny "benefits, legal protection, or whatever" in this context.
Be that as it may, it seems a rather small price to pay to have your union called union instead of marriage, if this in fact means gaining precisely the same recognition by the state.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
2) The state does not make marriage contingent upon childbearing. To insist that it start doing so, but only in this particular case, smacks of special pleading.
Huh? Who said anything about making marriage contingent upon childbearing? It is merely ordered to childbearing.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
3) The fact that there's really been no pressure for the state to create new legal categories for marriages that it legally recognizes but which are considered invalid by various religious groups (remarriages after divorce, inter-faith marriages, inter-racial marriages, etc.) gives the impression that such arguments are driven by animus against including homosexuals under the law rather than some high-minded principle which would apply equally to a whole bunch of other groups but for some reason hasn't been a problem until now.
For "some reason"? For a very simple reason: it is now not a man and a woman who wish to have their formalized and durable relationship recognized, but before it always was.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
1) Throwing a hissy fit over nomenclature has often been used as a pretext to deny "benefits, legal protection, or whatever" in this context.
Be that as it may, it seems a rather small price to pay to have your union called union instead of marriage, if this in fact means gaining precisely the same recognition by the state.
I don't know about that. Deliberately incorporating religious dogma into civil law seems a pretty high price for a previously secular legal system to pay. Conversely one would argue that a little linguistic discomfort for a small minority is a small price to pay for equality under the law, especially given that their discomfort at state recognition of other "non-marriages" has been quite bearable up to this point.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
2) The state does not make marriage contingent upon childbearing. To insist that it start doing so, but only in this particular case, smacks of special pleading.
Huh? Who said anything about making marriage contingent upon childbearing? It is merely ordered to childbearing.
You did, by explicitly arguing that the state should reject same-sex marriages on the grounds of infertility. This doesn't seem to be an argument you're prepared to advance for opposite-sex couples, though.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
3) The fact that there's really been no pressure for the state to create new legal categories for marriages that it legally recognizes but which are considered invalid by various religious groups (remarriages after divorce, inter-faith marriages, inter-racial marriages, etc.) gives the impression that such arguments are driven by animus against including homosexuals under the law rather than some high-minded principle which would apply equally to a whole bunch of other groups but for some reason hasn't been a problem until now.
For "some reason"? For a very simple reason: it is now not a man and a woman who wish to have their formalized and durable relationship recognized, but before it always was.
I understand your argument, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to any other marriage objectionable to your (or anyone else's) religion. This is especially the case if you're advancing the "not a real marriage" argument. One could, for example, argue that no state has ever recognized remarriage after divorce as valid because any relationships so reconized were not real marriages.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The point of Braille is to give access to a particular visual skill - reading - to the blind. To make the analogy, we must hence ask what the purpose ("skill") is of marriage. The traditional answer is that marriage is primarily ordered to human procreation, the begetting and raising of children.
It may be the answer in your tradition, but it has scant support in the Bible, especially the New Testament. What about committed companionship and enabling the partners to model and appreciate the love of God? That was why God created Eve. As "the purpose" of marriage, procreation is conspicuous in Saint Paul's discussions, or anywhere else in the New Testament, only by its absence.
[ 16. November 2011, 17:49: Message edited by: Alogon ]
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Deliberately incorporating religious dogma into civil law seems a pretty high price for a previously secular legal system to pay.
Firstly, of course historically the term "marriage" has only referred to unions between a man and a woman, in law as much as in society. Secondly, heterosexual unions are of course the totally dominant norm everywhere in the world at all times, quite irrespective of specific culture and religion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with respecting both legal tradition and an anthropologically invariant feature of human behaviour in new naming conventions made necessary by the recent, local innovation of recognized gay unions.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You did, by explicitly arguing that the state should reject same-sex marriages on the grounds of infertility. This doesn't seem to be an argument you're prepared to advance for opposite-sex couples, though.
There is a difference between "ordered to" and "contingent upon" procreation. Marriages are the former, not the latter. A gay couple can be incredibly fertile, but what they are doing in bed is not the sort of thing that could make babies. It's not the procreative success that counts, not even the likelihood of procreation, but that the sort of sex that occurs even warrants discussion in these terms. Anal sex, for example, is not really "infertile", since it is not the sort of activity to which fertility can be attributed. I might as well say that eating a sandwich is "infertile". True in the sense that no babies are forthcoming, but a silly thing to say nevertheless.
Although I have to admit that this reasonable distinction is not "modern secular". Secular society has maintained the rules habitually, long after it had forgotten their rationale. So if you insist on a purely secular definition, then we are left with "marriage = husband + wife" by fiat.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I understand your argument, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to any other marriage objectionable to your (or anyone else's) religion. This is especially the case if you're advancing the "not a real marriage" argument. One could, for example, argue that no state has ever recognized remarriage after divorce as valid because any relationships so reconized were not real marriages.
There always have been variations in what is accepted as a "proper" marriage. And people generally have been aware of that, certainly at the level of society that counts for making rules (today that's to some extent most of us, in the past, not so much). Even some remote corner of Christendom would have retained knowledge of polygamy thanks to the OT. But all these marriages, proper and improper, were still formalized and durable unions between man and woman. That's simply an invariant of human behaviour. Maybe I do not recognize a remarriage after a divorce as a proper marriage on religious grounds, but I certainly recognize this as a proper attempt at marriage. It has the right "ingredients", but in the wrong constellation according to my religion. Hence I also have no problem recognizing it as a civil (non-religious) marriage. This is not the case for the relationship between two gays, whatever properties it may have. That has the wrong "ingredients" for a marriage, no matter what constellation.
Again, that's not to say that such a relationship should not be recognized at all. It's not to say that it should be recognized as less than a marriage. But it should not be recognized as a marriage. Because it isn't one. And I see no reason to impoverish language by removing the ability to make the correct distinction with one word.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, that's not to say that such a relationship should not be recognized at all. It's not to say that it should be recognized as less than a marriage.
Why this hierarchy? If you want something more or less than marriage, go back to your church's teaching that celibacy is higher than marriage. Then evaluate all other relationships from that perspective.
Is friendship higher or less than marriage?
Is a relationship between two gay men in their eighties, unable to have sex so just friends, higher or lower than marriage?
And why this unhealthy obsession with genitals, anyway? Surely the quality of love is what counts. To dwell on genital acts or lack of them is to reify human beings, to reduce them to mere body parts.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Deliberately incorporating religious dogma into civil law seems a pretty high price for a previously secular legal system to pay.
Firstly, of course historically the term "marriage" has only referred to unions between a man and a woman, in law as much as in society. Secondly, heterosexual unions are of course the totally dominant norm everywhere in the world at all times, quite irrespective of specific culture and religion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with respecting both legal tradition and an anthropologically invariant feature of human behaviour in new naming conventions made necessary by the recent, local innovation of recognized gay unions.
Yes, appeal to history, tradition, and 'this is the way things have always been done' are often used to deny legal equality to minority groups. The fact that this is commonplace does not necessarily make it right.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You did, by explicitly arguing that the state should reject same-sex marriages on the grounds of infertility. This doesn't seem to be an argument you're prepared to advance for opposite-sex couples, though.
There is a difference between "ordered to" and "contingent upon" procreation. Marriages are the former, not the latter. A gay couple can be incredibly fertile, but what they are doing in bed is not the sort of thing that could make babies.
The same could be argued of a woman born without ovaries (or who has had her ovaries surgically removed). No sex act she can perform could possibly "make babies", so I'm guess that you'd consider her body not to be "ordered to procreation". That should, using your reasoning, render her inelligible for marriage in the eyes of the state, yet that's not an argument you're willing to advance.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Secular society has maintained the rules habitually, long after it had forgotten their rationale. So if you insist on a purely secular definition, then we are left with "marriage = husband + wife" by fiat.
Most secular legal systems these days do not make legal distinctions between "husband" and "wife". It can (and has) been argued that the abandonment of strictly defined, legally enforced gender roles within marriage was what made same-sex marriage conceptually possible in the first place. Describing marriage in terms of non-overlapping (usually hierarchical) gender roles holds no appeal to a same-sex couple, but considering it "a loving partnership of equals" sounds like the way a lot of same-sex couples would describe their relationship.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I understand your argument, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to any other marriage objectionable to your (or anyone else's) religion. This is especially the case if you're advancing the "not a real marriage" argument. One could, for example, argue that no state has ever recognized remarriage after divorce as valid because any relationships so reconized were not real marriages.
There always have been variations in what is accepted as a "proper" marriage.
And no lack of people such as yourself claiming that each of these variants weren't real marriages and shouldn't be recognized as such or dire consequences would follow. But I'm sure this time it's different!
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And people generally have been aware of that, certainly at the level of society that counts for making rules (today that's to some extent most of us, in the past, not so much). Even some remote corner of Christendom would have retained knowledge of polygamy thanks to the OT. But all these marriages, proper and improper, were still formalized and durable unions between man and woman. That's simply an invariant of human behaviour.
I'm not a big fan of using tradition as a justification. It's got a bad history, in large part because it's trotted out when nearly everything else has failed. A century ago one could (and many did) make similar arguments about how tradition universally required male supremacy (as opposed to legal equality) within a marital relationship since it was "an invariant of human behaviour". Ditto for male supremacy within the body politic. I'm not sure why adapting an existing institution in new and unprecedented ways is always supposed to be a bad thing.
I'm also think it's a bit disingenuous to imply that homosexuality, or even durable homosexual unions are something brand new and not "an invariant of human behaviour". The only novelty is in the fact of legal recognition (or "formaliz[ing]" them, to borrow your terminology), which you claim to be in favor of, but only if the ungrateful wretches admit how much better and more special Kim Kardashian's ten week union is than their own non-marriage.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Maybe I do not recognize a remarriage after a divorce as a proper marriage on religious grounds, but I certainly recognize this as a proper attempt at marriage. It has the right "ingredients", but in the wrong constellation according to my religion. Hence I also have no problem recognizing it as a civil (non-religious) marriage. This is not the case for the relationship between two gays, whatever properties it may have. That has the wrong "ingredients" for a marriage, no matter what constellation.
I thought your religion taught that remarriage after divorce was an improper attempt at marriage.
Anyway, I'm not familiar with the Catholic marital definition of "constellations" and "ingredients". I take it that the latter is purely about the physical body and the former refers to social inter-relations. This would imply that those with non-standard bodies (at least in certain aspects) are inelligible for marriage, but you deny this is your argument. Perhaps a little clarification?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, that's not to say that such a relationship should not be recognized at all. It's not to say that it should be recognized as less than a marriage. But it should not be recognized as a marriage. Because it isn't one. And I see no reason to impoverish language by removing the ability to make the correct distinction with one word.
Well, one word for you. I've yet to see a simple, one word description of this "exactly equal to marriage in all ways, except not" legal category you suggest be created.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
2) The state does not make marriage contingent upon childbearing. To insist that it start doing so, but only in this particular case, smacks of special pleading.
I bow before you, because you managed to distil paragraphs of argument into two beautiful, succinct sentences.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
I've been away in RL but now I'm back I can comment on HB's article before replying to what's been posted while I've been away.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Anyway, I'll throw "The Seven Habits of Effective Lesbian Parents" into the pot again
I think people undermine their case when they speculate as to causes in this manner.
The one point that really stood out was about Lesbians not spanking their children. Allegedly that is because fathers tend to be more disciplinary.
That may be true but begs the question of what children may miss out on if they do not have a father to discipline them. The report is saying that lesbian couples are much less likely to abuse their children but the corollary could be that children brought up be lesbian parents are less disciplined and have problems relating to authority.
What they could do is have a mother and father together and then (as a generalisation) their various strengths and weaknesses would complement each other.
I want to stress that I am not drawing the conclusions (above) from the report just pointing out that many factors are two sides of a coin.
You say that I'm simply looking for what justifies my opinions, but this article reads to me like someone who has found a conclusion and is reaching around randomly for reasons to pin it on.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
While this is true to some extent, the report does say there are relatively fewer studies on parenting by gay male couples rather than lesbian couples, several do exist (as you point out, and as mentioned in the amicus brief).
Thanks for your reply Frisky.
Is this a typo though? You have written 'relatively fewer' where as the report says 'relatively few' (or literally 'relatively sparse').
That is a significant difference. The report does not say just that there is more evidence on lesbian couples, but that there is very little data on gay couples.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
If there is some difference for single parents or unmarried couples, you could argue that there must be some negative weighting when it comes to adoption, but barring adoption entirely seems like gross overreaction to me. Marriage isn't something magical that will make any couple superior parents to all other parenting arrangements, it may just be one factor in a great list of factors.
That is a fair point, but I'm arguing that marriage is the most important factor.
As others have pointed out, the bit I find difficult to work out is in the difference between my personal convictions and civil law governing marriage.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There is limited financial benefit in marrying. But there is a huge social and stability benefit. Concrete examples of this have been pointed out to you. Things like visitation rights matter.
I have been reading. Especially the bit where it was agreed that visitation rights are covered by a civil partnership.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I don't see why supporters of gay marriage should be proposing that children in orphanages be denied any parents at all. To do so would be to try to fit the world onto a bed of Procrustes.
<snip>
Most Conservative Christians I know and all of those I have seen much of in this thread seek to find the platonic ideal. And then seek to say "That is the perfect model. And we should strive for purity." And because something is obviously impure it must be rejected, even if it is significantly better than the alternatives. It, in this imperfect world, makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
This is a stone cold rejection of Grace. It is a denial that the Light can be anywhere the light is not pure. It is a rejection of sitting down to dinner with publicans, tax collectors, and prostitutes.
Are single parents worse at raising kids than married couples? Generally yes (there's a significant difference between single unmarried and single due to divorce). But what alternative would you offer? Mandatory adoption for kids of single parents by adoptive couples? That would be a sick joke. Magdalene Laundries and taking the babies away? You're just making the problems worse. Single parents beat no parents. Instead, nurture the good rather than focus on condemning.
We are trying step by step to make the world a better place. Objections that it won't be perfect are not constructive and just get in the way. No living entity is perfect. If you want perfection, look at a blank sheet of paper. Or the vast cold emptiness of space. Life is growth and change - and that is not and can never be perfect. And to reject the less than perfect just for that is, as I said, to rejectlight and grace.
I think you are confusing prevention and cure here. Surely the government needs to think about both?
Taking single parents as an example, I want to offer all the support to single parents possible, but I don't want to do anything that will encourage the number of single parents to increase though. I think that is what grace demands.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you reject psychology as a legitimate science, what would you consider "well established evidence"? This seems to be the predictable coda to your claim that you can be convinced by strong evidence; namely that any possible evidence can't be considered "strong".
That is not what I said.
I think psychological research is very worth while. I was objecting to the way the report kept implying that it was objective scientific fact.
For example one study in the section about orientation (that I referred to as an example) consisted of interviewing gay and lesbians as to whether they perceived their orientation as a choice or as pre-determined. I commented that I thought such a study was well worth doing and very helpful. However, such a study tells you about the perception of the people involved. No more, no less.
I would feel the same over a study asking school children whether they wanted homework or not - the study would be useful (what the children think about homework is important and not to be dismissed) but it would not 'settle the matter'.
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on
:
You know, I think the world's moving on. I was sitting with two elderly aunts and my mother this afternoon, all good church ladies. One of my aunts, who attended our civil union, said, "But when you and Rosie got married..." We never referred to it as marriage.
I hear the word "marriage" applied to my relationship by all sorts of people. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
Hi Johnny, thanks for your reply too
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
While this is true to some extent, the report does say there are relatively fewer studies on parenting by gay male couples rather than lesbian couples, several do exist (as you point out, and as mentioned in the amicus brief).
Thanks for your reply Frisky.
Is this a typo though? You have written 'relatively fewer' where as the report says 'relatively few' (or literally 'relatively sparse').
That is a significant difference. The report does not say just that there is more evidence on lesbian couples, but that there is very little data on gay couples.
This still leaves you with having to respond to
- All the studies that have been done ("few" though they may be) have consistently shown no significant difference between male/male couple parenting and other parenting arrangements. Again, expecting a sudden slew of scary reports does not seem defensible to me. The most prominent relevant professional bodies are convinced enough to have made resolutions supporting both the right for gay couples to marry and to adopt/parent etc. surely you should take this into account at least for the purposes of civil law, if not for your personal convictions? At very least it places a burden on you to argue beyond "won't have any of this, need N more studies" (if you wait long enough, maybe one will be scary, perhaps even scary straight couples, like that study on lesbian parents )
- Single individuals have been shown to be somewhat at a disadvantage relative to couples in terms of parenting. Both lesbian couples and heterosexual couples have been shown to be at least equivalent in terms of parenting capability. While I realise that the combination is not necessarily linear, why would adding either a male or female individual to a single female parenting relationship produce equivalent parenting capability, but adding a male or female individual to a single male parenting relationship would also not produce equivalent parenting capability? Again, essentialist arguments about male/female parenting magic have been weakened by the studies on lesbian parents, why should this be swapped out for female-only magic given that the studies on male/male parenting that have been done up to date have consistently shown no difference? Surely if males were superfluous, male/female couples would be as bad as single female parents, do we (male/male couples) somehow cancel each other out in the calculus of parenthood? :/
- This should also be seen against the background of the many studies on gay couples showing no significant difference in terms of their relationship (ignoring any parenting activity for the moment). It is important to take this into account, because these relationships provide a large part of the backdrop for a parenting relationship. Gay couples don't have some weird and alien way of being together, they are expressing very normal behaviour patterns in common with heterosexual couples, they just happen to be homosexual instead.
- You should also take into account that we don't actually form models of parenting only from our same-sex parent, we form them from both parents (and most gay people are born to heterosexual parents), the parents of friends, extended family and so on. There's no reason to suspect that we somehow form some sort of gigantic blind spot where we don't know how to react in parenting situations that call for a specific type of parenting behaviour.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
If there is some difference for single parents or unmarried couples, you could argue that there must be some negative weighting when it comes to adoption, but barring adoption entirely seems like gross overreaction to me. Marriage isn't something magical that will make any couple superior parents to all other parenting arrangements, it may just be one factor in a great list of factors.
That is a fair point, but I'm arguing that marriage is the most important factor.
As others have pointed out, the bit I find difficult to work out is in the difference between my personal convictions and civil law governing marriage.
Well, I understand where you're coming from. For one thing though, I'd still like to know your answer to my question: "which would you prefer, a couple who married after a week and are trying to adopt after a month, or a couple who have been together and cohabiting for 10 years and then trying to adopt?" Based on only this information, I don't think you can seriously make a case for the married couple that doesn't include a disproportionate amount of brownie points that God adds. Even if this doesn't change your private conviction which would find expression in your faith community, surely this must at least indicate the benefits of marriage for parenting are not clearcut or absolute and are strongly context dependent. It is an indicator, but not by any means the sole indicator. This should be the basis of civil law in terms of adoption laws at least.
However, because of your private convictions (assuming these don't change), you should argue for reasonable religious excemptions from civil law in terms of the marriages of same-sex couples. Arguing from a perspective of religious freedom for all involved is, I think, the best way of going about things. There are usually contentious issues where religion meets civil society (for example, what if a religious group receives public funds to perform a service, do they become civil servants?), but there are plenty of examples of legislation available from other states to work from.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Johnny S <on spanking children>: quote:
That may be true but begs the question of what children may miss out on if they do not have a father to discipline them. The report is saying that lesbian couples are much less likely to abuse their children but the corollary could be that children brought up be lesbian parents are less disciplined and have problems relating to authority.
Maybe when you were raising your children, spanking was an acceptable form of discipline. It was when I was a child (and let me assure you, my mother was just as involved in 'disciplining' me as my dad was) but it isn't any more.
Spanking is not the only way of disciplining a child. It isn't even the most effective (not by a jugful). Drawing the conclusion that parents who don't spank their children are uninterested in disciplining them is completely unwarranted.
<declaration of interest here>: I do not spank my daughter. I do not use her father's authority as a stick to beat her into submission with, either.
Maybe children of lesbian parents are less likely to offer unquestioning obedience to patriarchal authority figures. But I think that's a good thing.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You did, by explicitly arguing that the state should reject same-sex marriages on the grounds of infertility. This doesn't seem to be an argument you're prepared to advance for opposite-sex couples, though.
There is a difference between "ordered to" and "contingent upon" procreation. Marriages are the former, not the latter. A gay couple can be incredibly fertile, but what they are doing in bed is not the sort of thing that could make babies. It's not the procreative success that counts, not even the likelihood of procreation, but that the sort of sex that occurs even warrants discussion in these terms. Anal sex, for example, is not really "infertile", since it is not the sort of activity to which fertility can be attributed. I might as well say that eating a sandwich is "infertile". True in the sense that no babies are forthcoming, but a silly thing to say nevertheless.
Arguing from anthropology might work, arguing that marriage is ordered to procreation is not.
Specifically, all post-menopausal women are infertile. Clearly, this is the "norm" and so presumably God ordered womens' bodies toward an absolute state of infertility after a certain number of years. The organs comprising the premenopausal woman's reproductive system cannot be said to be a reproductive system of a postmenopausal woman in any meaningful sense other than as a reference to her previous state as a fertile being, now forever past (as God intended).
Nothing has "gone wrong", there is no disorder here because observation of nature "clearly reveals" this piece of divine fiat. If this is how God goes about things, then women have no claim to be able to engage in sex ordered toward procreation after reaching a certain age.
Therefore, post-menopausal women cannot be said to enter into any relationship that is supposedly ordered towards procreation. And yet, why is it that heterosexual couples of considerable age get married for the first time in their lives? Why does nobody bats an eyelash? Or is it because they would quite rightly give a literal or figurative smack to anyone who begs to differ?
You might attribute this to "tradition", but at that point you've lost any argument saying that any valid marriage must necessarily be ordered towards procreation, you would have no further claim to bring it up in an argument except as a cheap piece of rhetoric.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
The most prominent relevant professional bodies are convinced enough to have made resolutions supporting both the right for gay couples to marry and to adopt/parent etc. surely you should take this into account at least for the purposes of civil law, if not for your personal convictions? At very least it places a burden on you to argue beyond "won't have any of this, need N more studies" (if you wait long enough, maybe one will be scary, perhaps even scary straight couples, like that study on lesbian parents )
You are quite right that it should be enough for me (relevant professional bodies). It almost is. However, the way the report tried to sweep the lack of data on gay parents under the carpet I think seriously undermines the impartiality of the report.
I don't think it is credible to assume that gay and lesbian couples are equivalent. They well be, but I don't think that a report of this kind can just assume that.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
While I realise that the combination is not necessarily linear, why would adding either a male or female individual to a single female parenting relationship produce equivalent parenting capability, but adding a male or female individual to a single male parenting relationship would also not produce equivalent parenting capability? Again, essentialist arguments about male/female parenting magic have been weakened by the studies on lesbian parents, why should this be swapped out for female-only magic given that the studies on male/male parenting that have been done up to date have consistently shown no difference?
Did you read the newspaper article linked to by Horseman Bree? That article did try to point to advantages specific to women to do with parenting. This cuts both ways. If it is claimed that lesbian couples do better because they are women then it is possible that gay couples will do worse because they are men. I do not think this, but my point is that it is not a trivial assumption to move from lesbian couples to gay couples.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Well, I understand where you're coming from. For one thing though, I'd still like to know your answer to my question: "which would you prefer, a couple who married after a week and are trying to adopt after a month, or a couple who have been together and cohabiting for 10 years and then trying to adopt?"
As I said previously civil law has to consider both prevention and cure. Simply based on children needing adopting I agree with you above. (And therefore sympathetic to where you end up.) I know you disagree with me, but I'm also wondering about legislation that tries to stop children needing adopting in the first place.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Maybe when you were raising your children, spanking was an acceptable form of discipline. It was when I was a child (and let me assure you, my mother was just as involved in 'disciplining' me as my dad was) but it isn't any more.
Spanking is not the only way of disciplining a child. It isn't even the most effective (not by a jugful). Drawing the conclusion that parents who don't spank their children are uninterested in disciplining them is completely unwarranted.
<declaration of interest here>: I do not spank my daughter. I do not use her father's authority as a stick to beat her into submission with, either.
Maybe children of lesbian parents are less likely to offer unquestioning obedience to patriarchal authority figures. But I think that's a good thing.
Where did I say anything to defend spanking?
The logic of the article ran like this:
1. Lesbians tend not to spank their children.
2. This is probably because men tend to be much more authoritarian.
I was just pointing out that if (using the logic of the article) some men tend to abuse their children due to their authoritarian bent, then it could also be true that some women would fail to discipline their children due to the opposite generalisation. (In other words, it's not just men who are bent. )
I used the word discipline. It was the article that talked about spanking.
Again, I don't think the logic or the generalisation holds. It is the article that is (rather disturbingly) clutching at straws.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It may be the answer in your tradition, but it has scant support in the Bible, especially the New Testament.
Right. Jesus introduced two innovations to the Jewish concept of marriage. Firstly, He made marriage rules stricter. Secondly, He introduced celibacy as preferred religious life style. In doing the former, he explicitly references Genesis (Mark 10:5-9), with its clear focus on procreation. There's no indication whatsoever that Jesus went against the grain of Jewish concepts of marriage otherwise. And that Jesus was very fond of children is dragged out all the time for anti-intellectual arguments. Now that we consider where these children are coming from, they apparently pop out of existence.
The evangelists of course do no deviate in the slightest either. For example, take the story of Elizabeth and Zechariah (Luke 1:5-25). Having children as a sign of favour from God for a marriage is present there just in the same way as for Abraham and Sarah in the OT. It is true that there is no detailed discussion about penises, vaginas and what precisely is supposed to be done with them. These writings are from a time where the expression "knowing each other" was preferred over "fucking one's brains out". These people were not particularly interested in discussing the ins and outs of gay love. They were however very interested in descent (e.g., Matthew 1) and guess where that derives from...
To conclude that there is "scant support in the Bible, especially the New Testament" is just the sort of mind-boggling statement that has me convinced that there is no such thing as "exegesis", and hence that the foundation of Protestantism is a necessary fail. The one and only valid question concerning the bible is why the eisegesis one favours is supposed to be truer than another. And yeah, my tradition is the best answer to that IMNSHO.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
As "the purpose" of marriage, procreation is conspicuous in Saint Paul's discussions, or anywhere else in the New Testament, only by its absence.
Because the issue of children from a marriage is totally taken for granted by St Paul, like in 1 Cor 7:14, 2 Cor 12:14, Eph 6:1-4, Col 3:20-21, 1 Thess 2:7,11, 1 Tim 3:4,12,5:4,10,14, Tit 1:6,2:4. It's just not something that needed discussing in these times. Unless you were barren, an affliction at least if not a punishment by God, marrying meant that you would have children. Likely, lots of them. And of course it is one of the key images of St Paul to declare us to be children of God by adoption (versus Jesus the Firstborn by Begetting). He's totally in tune there with Jewish thought.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
The most prominent relevant professional bodies are convinced enough to have made resolutions supporting both the right for gay couples to marry and to adopt/parent etc. surely you should take this into account at least for the purposes of civil law, if not for your personal convictions? At very least it places a burden on you to argue beyond "won't have any of this, need N more studies" (if you wait long enough, maybe one will be scary, perhaps even scary straight couples, like that study on lesbian parents )
You are quite right that it should be enough for me (relevant professional bodies). It almost is. However, the way the report tried to sweep the lack of data on gay parents under the carpet I think seriously undermines the impartiality of the report.
Legal briefs are just that, legal briefs. If you want a meta-analysis, that you'll have to find elsewhere (mmm, I should start up some sort of link farm for these). While I think that the amicus brief is a clearcut statement of the position of the relevant organisations all conveniently rolled into one (and this is why I posted this link), you'll have to look elsewhere for literature surveys unfortunately.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think it is credible to assume that gay and lesbian couples are equivalent. They well be, but I don't think that a report of this kind can just assume that.
Gay couples are gay couples, lesbian couples are lesbian couples and heterosexual couples are heterosexual couples. But in all measurable ways these have been shown to be pretty much equivalent as social phenomena after having to deal with considerable prejudice at every turn . Making an exception for male/male parenting ability after there have been some studies consistently showing no difference in parenting ability to the satisfaction of the relevant professional bodies reminds me of a gambler wanting to keep pulling the lever because he knows his luck will kick in soon (an odd thing to hope for too considering the "payoff")...
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I said previously civil law has to consider both prevention and cure. Simply based on children needing adopting I agree with you above. (And therefore sympathetic to where you end up.) I know you disagree with me, but I'm also wondering about legislation that tries to stop children needing adopting in the first place.
What form would such legislation take? Could you list some propositions?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example one study in the section about orientation (that I referred to as an example) consisted of interviewing gay and lesbians as to whether they perceived their orientation as a choice or as pre-determined. I commented that I thought such a study was well worth doing and very helpful. However, such a study tells you about the perception of the people involved. No more, no less.
The problem here is that many (most) non-straight people have tried to kowtow to the discrimination in society and become straight. But they can't. Even the success rate of ex-gay ministries is risible and those can claim bisexuals. Are some people bisexual? Yes. But attempts to make people straight have been tried ad nauseam (literally). And they fail. Miserably.
It's presented as an established fact because it pretty much is.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I have been reading. Especially the bit where it was agreed that visitation rights are covered by a civil partnership.
And Civil Partnerships are different to marriages in two things alone. The name and what religions are allowed to do with them. The British Civil Partnership Act is an interference on freedom of religion. And the pretense that they are anything other than a marriage is wearing thin.
quote:
[ab]I think you are confusing prevention and cure here. Surely the government needs to think about both?[/qb]
Of course. Allowing people to marry people biologically compatable with them and that they love is a means of prevention. Allowing gay couples to adopt is a means of prevention. Gay marriage aids prevention in many, many ways. You, however, seem to find that prevention here is unacceptable.
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
You know, I think the world's moving on. I was sitting with two elderly aunts and my mother this afternoon, all good church ladies. One of my aunts, who attended our civil union, said, "But when you and Rosie got married..." We never referred to it as marriage.
I hear the word "marriage" applied to my relationship by all sorts of people. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
This fails to surprise me. Civil Unions are simply a way to allow certain brands of reactionary (normally Christian) to be able to pretend that they aren't marriages. And pragmatically where they are an issue I am in favour of them as a compromise that makes the next step inevitable.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
If you want a meta-analysis, that you'll have to find elsewhere (mmm, I should start up some sort of link farm for these).
Yes please, this would be really useful.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Making an exception for male/male parenting ability after there have been some studies consistently showing no difference in parenting ability to the satisfaction of the relevant professional bodies reminds me of a gambler wanting to keep pulling the lever because he knows his luck will kick in soon (an odd thing to hope for too considering the "payoff")...
I don't think you can draw any assumptions about male/male parenting from this report. That was my point.
I wasn't saying anything about gay parenting but everything about the report. Any report that claims to summarise current research and has a full page intro about how their organisation is committed to the 'truth' only has got to be squeaky clean in this regard.
What I'm saying is that when I read the way this lack of data was swept under the carpet it immediately made me wonder how reliable their interpretation of the rest of the data was.
As you say, I'd need access to the original studies to be able to comment on that.
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
What form would such legislation take? Could you list some propositions?
Actually I was more thinking about things remaining as they are. The key principles being 1. Compassion towards single parents and children needing adoption. 2. Raising the value of marriage within society so that less children need adopting in the first place.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's presented as an established fact because it pretty much is.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Allowing gay couples to adopt is a means of prevention. Gay marriage aids prevention in many, many ways. You, however, seem to find that prevention here is unacceptable.
By prevention I meant stopping children being born with the need to be adopted in the first place. Statistically that means we are talking about children born to heterosexuals.
What do you mean by prevention?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It's presented as an established fact because it pretty much is.
As far as I'm aware, the only people arguing that gay people don't really exist and that we have complete choice as to who we are attracted to are Evangelical Christians.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Allowing gay couples to adopt is a means of prevention. Gay marriage aids prevention in many, many ways. You, however, seem to find that prevention here is unacceptable.
By prevention I meant stopping children being born with the need to be adopted in the first place.
Out of curiosity where do you stand on the abortion debate? In particular the contraception subsection? Because those advocating against contraception (Catholics, Evangelicals) look remarkably like the anti gay marriage lobby.
quote:
Statistically that means we are talking about children born to heterosexuals.
What do you mean by prevention?
Statistically that means that people in gay marriagaes rather than with marriages of convenience will not have kids.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
If you want a meta-analysis, that you'll have to find elsewhere (mmm, I should start up some sort of link farm for these).
Yes please, this would be really useful.
Well, this might be particularly relevant, it's Australian and open for downloading Also fairly recent (2007).
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parented Families: A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society
I think you should note that the amount of studies on Lesbian parents is huge, but there's also a fair amount of work on same-sex male parenting. For example, the following "birds-eye view" of aspects explored with examples of each
quote:
In relation to gay male parents or intending parents, researchers have explored interconnected aspects
such as: the desire and decision to parent (e.g., Beers, 1996; Sbordone, 1993); parenting arrangements
and satisfaction (e.g., McPherson, 1993); social support and parenting in families following adoption
(e.g., Erich, Leung, Kindle & Carter, 2005); gay men negotiating the legal system as parents (e.g.,
Violi, 2004); relationships with women who give birth following insemination with the man’s sperm
(e.g., Dempsey, 2005; van Reyk, 2004); experiences of assessment for adoption, fostering (e.g., Hicks,
1996) and surrogacy (e.g., Lev, 2006); parenting arrangements (e.g., Beers, 1996); the experiences
of the children of gay men (e.g., Barrett & Tasker, 2001; Mallon 2004); fatherhood practices (e.g.,
Schacher, Auerbach & Silverstein, 2005; Silverstein, Auerbach & Levant 2002); gay men parenting postheterosexual
divorce (Benson, Silverstein & Auerbach, 2005; Hicks, 2004); gay men negotiating stepparenting
(Crosbie-Burnett & Helmbrecht, 1993; Current-Juretschko, 2005); the specific experiences
of gay men who parent post heterosexual divorce (e.g., Violi, 2004); and summaries of these research
areas (Barrett & Tasker, 2002).
As I've said before, the evidence points towards the specific circumstances of parenting arrangement being the main influence on parenting success, not sexual orientation (note that any emphasis within in the quotes is mine)
quote:
Since the 1970s, it has become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of
parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and satisfaction with relationships
within the family, and the level of co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to
determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family structures, per se, such as the
number, gender, sexuality and co-habitation status of parents
Specifically, and regardless of family structure, children are likely to do well in a family environment
characterised by an absence of conflict; high levels of co-operation, trust, ease and cohesion; high
levels of warmth and care; and high levels of social connection and support. The main family factors
related to poor outcomes for children are high levels of conflict, with compromised or poor mental
health and well-being of primary care-givers also being a key factor.
Seems in many respects same-sex parenting is superior to opposite-sex parenting (see below)
quote:
[S]ome new research suggests that lesbian and gay families are in some respects better for
children than heterosexual families… Research on the division of parenting and household
labour among lesbian co-parents and gay-co-parents has shown a distinct pattern of equality
and sharing compared to heterosexual parents, with corresponding positive well-being for the
partner’s relationship with each other, and the child’s adjustment. (Millbank, 2003, pp. 546-547)
...
What differences have emerged, however, suggest that gay and lesbian parents tend to be more
responsive to their children, more child oriented, and more egalitarian in their sharing of the
workload, characteristics associated with a more positive child outcome. (Johnson & O’Connor,
2002, p. 67)
...
[C]entral results of existing research on lesbian and gay couples and families with children are
exceptionally clear. Beyond their witness to the sheer existence of lesbian and gay family lives,
the results of existing studies, taken together, also yield a picture of families thriving, even in the
midst of discrimination and oppression. (Patterson, 2000, p. 1064)
Of course, there is a lot here, and to some extent I'm teasing a bit. But, I think the case for same-sex couple parenting has already been made by same-sex couples, well, parenting (as the article demonstrates).
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
Oh dear, pardon the word wrapping disaster ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Not sure about the ratio between quote and my own writing also, but I think some elements of the text have to be drawn into the thread...
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As far as I'm aware, the only people arguing that gay people don't really exist and that we have complete choice as to who we are attracted to are Evangelical Christians.
I didn't think anyone was arguing that gay people have complete choice anymore.
However, I also thought that current opinion is that the formation of sexuality was a complex mixture of nature and nurture.
My quotes may be a little out of date but I had read both Dawkins and Tatchell (neither are evangelical Christians as far as I am aware) stating that nurture and choice must play a part.
I'm happy to look at anything more up to date though.
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Statistically that means that people in gay marriagaes rather than with marriages of convenience will not have kids.
I don't understand your point. We are talking about 2% of the population here. The fact that gay couples are a minority should not be an excuse to waver their rights but I don't see how it is going to make a significant impact on the number of children who will need adopting.
ISTM that society should be putting more effort into supporting marriage as a positive value in the first place. Although I admit that this has nothing really to do with the discussion about gay marriage per se.
[ 19. November 2011, 01:54: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parented Families: A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society
Many thanks. I'm busy over the weekend but I'll read through it properly when I get time.
The first thing I do with any report like this is to read the acknowledgements - to look for who is sponsoring the work. I was surprised to see thanks for the support from Dr. Victoria Clarke and Dr. Peter Hegarty of the Lesbian and Gay Section of the British Psychological Society. According to their website (Psychology of Sexualities section) "The section is strongly committed to developing non-heterosexist and gender-inclusive forms of research, theory and clinical practice in British psychology."
Isn't that a bit like a report on the effects of smoking being sponsored by British American Tobacco?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
According to their website (Psychology of Sexualities section) "The section is strongly committed to developing non-heterosexist and gender-inclusive forms of research, theory and clinical practice in British psychology."
Isn't that a bit like a report on the effects of smoking being sponsored by British American Tobacco?
More like a report on the effects of racial discrimination being compiled by non-racists.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
According to their website (Psychology of Sexualities section) "The section is strongly committed to developing non-heterosexist and gender-inclusive forms of research, theory and clinical practice in British psychology."
Isn't that a bit like a report on the effects of smoking being sponsored by British American Tobacco?
More like a report on the effects of racial discrimination being compiled by non-racists.
Yes, and they're making billions (evil pinky) of dollars a year off the shadowy gay world order I wonder when our cheques will arrive for our postings ...
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
More like a report on the effects of racial discrimination being compiled by non-racists.
If the entire non-racist department happened to be white, then yes.
"No but we can't be biased, you see, because we are the non-racist department. It says so it up there on the sign."
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Allowing gay couples to adopt is a means of prevention. Gay marriage aids prevention in many, many ways. You, however, seem to find that prevention here is unacceptable.
By prevention I meant stopping children being born with the need to be adopted in the first place. Statistically that means we are talking about children born to heterosexuals.
What do you mean by prevention?
This has been asked of you before, but I'm still hoping for a concrete answer. What exactly do you think that can be done that currently isn't to stop "children being born with the need to be adopted in the first place"? Do you think the state currently has the ability to predict which couples will die while their children are still young? Or that they know in advance which are going to turn out to be abusive monsters who shouldn't be trusted with small children?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
ISTM that society should be putting more effort into supporting marriage as a positive value in the first place. Although I admit that this has nothing really to do with the discussion about gay marriage per se.
Isn't "supporting marriage by opposing it" akin to saving the village by destroying it? Justinian was hinting at this earlier (I think), but wouldn't legal gay marriage dramatically reduce the number of children born to marriages where one partner is desperately trying to "fix" their homosexuality by living the straight life? Given that such unions are usually unhappy and doomed, this seems like a good thing to prevent.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This has been asked of you before, but I'm still hoping for a concrete answer. What exactly do you think that can be done that currently isn't to stop "children being born with the need to be adopted in the first place"? Do you think the state currently has the ability to predict which couples will die while their children are still young? Or that they know in advance which are going to turn out to be abusive monsters who shouldn't be trusted with small children?
I think the way you phrase the question reveals some of our different assumptions.
By prevention I meant that government doing what it can to strengthen the positive view of marriage in society. e.g. Investing in marriage counselling etc. that supports marriages and tries to reduce the number that break up in the first place rather than just picking up the pieces afterwards.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't "supporting marriage by opposing it" akin to saving the village by destroying it? Justinian was hinting at this earlier (I think), but wouldn't legal gay marriage dramatically reduce the number of children born to marriages where one partner is desperately trying to "fix" their homosexuality by living the straight life? Given that such unions are usually unhappy and doomed, this seems like a good thing to prevent.
As I said before this has nothing to do with gay marriage or civil rights for the gay community, but my point on this issue is that the gay community represent something in the order of 2/3% of the population. If (and of course it is a very big if in the light of our discussion) a policy helped reduce the number of children born as you describe above but at the same time devalued marriage in the rest of society and so caused more children to be born from broken heterosexual relationships then it would produce a net harm to the welfare of children.
Again, there would need to be evidence that this is likely to become the case and therefore (since I don't have any as yet) I'm not putting this forward.
My point was just that government policy is never in isolation and all factors and implications need to be considered.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parented Families: A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society
Okay, I've had time to read this properly now.
Thanks Frisky it was helpful.
I still have grave concerns about the methodology (e.g. the section on gay parenting referred to a study where parents was asked to comment on their own view of their own parenting which doesn't seem to be very objective to me) but was impressed by how comprehensive it is.
I don't think it over turned my personal convictions on this issue but it did go a long way to making me rethink my position on how society should view gay parenting - i.e. I think I need to drop my opposition to it.
My question on gay marriage still remains though - why isn't civil partnerships enough? (That's rhetorical BTW, I know why you guys think so.)
So, thanks for all your input, it has been very instructive.
I think that's all I have to say though for now.
Posted by frisky (# 15776) on
:
As a possibly interesting aside, I would appreciate the opinion of both sides on the following.
There's a lot going back and forth about how the legal system should classify the marriages/unions of same-sex couples. It seems, from the discussion, that the options are either civil union/civil partnership or marriage.
South Africa does recognise marriage for same-sex couples, but does so in a slightly odd way which may be of interest. There are at least 3 acts which regulate marriage.
(1) The Marriage Act: The old act which regulates marriage of specifically opposite-sex couples.
(2) The Recognition of Customary Marriages Act: Regulates traditional marriages of one man and several women. (It's amusing that polygamy is a conservative position in South Africa.)
(3)The Civil Union Act: The new act which regulates same-sex and opposite-sex marriages or civil partnerships.
Basically, the Civil Union Act is interesting in that it is, well, an act defining civil unions. However, when a civil union is entered into, the parties have to choose between calling it a marriage (making them spouses) or a civil partnership (making them partners). By the act, a civil union (which is either a marriage or a civil partnership) is equivalent for legal purposes to marriages under the old Marriage Act or customary marriages.
As far as "getting government out of marriage" goes, this seems to be the most realistic way of doing things. For one thing, it emphasises that the aim of the act is regulation within the context of civil society (from the name of the act and the collective term "civil union" for both designations), and it places the responsibility of naming the union on the persons entering into it.
I just thought this was an interesting reaction of a fairly socially conservative country with a socially progressive constitution to the ruling of its constitutional court.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
but it did go a long way to making me rethink my position on how society should view gay parenting - i.e. I think I need to drop my opposition to it.
And I almost never use that smiley in earnest. It's always nice to see someone changing their mind based on evidence. And thank you frisky.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Basically, the Civil Union Act is interesting in that it is, well, an act defining civil unions. However, when a civil union is entered into, the parties have to choose between calling it a marriage (making them spouses) or a civil partnership (making them partners). By the act, a civil union (which is either a marriage or a civil partnership) is equivalent for legal purposes to marriages under the old Marriage Act or customary marriages.
I have no problem with this as long as the choice is genuine. It's when you try to separate the categories in such a way that they are distinct rather than personal choice that there's a problem. (At a pragmatic level, I'm in favour of civil unions as a compromise solution because it's unstable and lets people see there's ultimately no problem with gay marriage.)
Also I've realised on re-reading that my above post to Johnny S could be taken as sarcastic. I was and am quite genuinely sincere that any time someone changes their mind through debate that is worth my respect, and this counts double when they actually post that they have done so. Again to Johnny S, I may not agree with you but you have my respect for the way you hold your beliefs.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I said before this has nothing to do with gay marriage or civil rights for the gay community, but my point on this issue is that the gay community represent something in the order of 2/3% of the population. If (and of course it is a very big if in the light of our discussion) a policy helped reduce the number of children born as you describe above but at the same time devalued marriage in the rest of society and so caused more children to be born from broken heterosexual relationships then it would produce a net harm to the welfare of children.
Again, there would need to be evidence that this is likely to become the case and therefore (since I don't have any as yet) I'm not putting this forward.
If you're not putting this forward, then why are you putting this forward? I'm still baffled by the idea that promoting marriage somehow devalues it. Quite frankly, if your opposite-sex spouse decides to end your marriage because the nice lesbian couple across the street were issued an official government certificate, your marriage was probably doomed anyway and your spouse was just looking for an excuse.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
but it did go a long way to making me rethink my position on how society should view gay parenting - i.e. I think I need to drop my opposition to it.
And I almost never use that smiley in earnest. It's always nice to see someone changing their mind based on evidence. And thank you frisky.
Indeed. JohnnyS is one of the most considerate and thoughtful evangelicals on The Ship. Whenever he and I have disagreed, I have always found him courteous - and often amusing.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Yes, there are very good reasons why someone else was called to Hell as a result of this thread and Johnny wasn't. Thank you Johnny, for the efforts you make.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by frisky:
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Parented Families: A Literature Review prepared for The Australian Psychological Society
Okay, I've had time to read this properly now.
Thanks Frisky it was helpful.
I still have grave concerns about the methodology (e.g. the section on gay parenting referred to a study where parents was asked to comment on their own view of their own parenting which doesn't seem to be very objective to me) but was impressed by how comprehensive it is.
I don't think it over turned my personal convictions on this issue but it did go a long way to making me rethink my position on how society should view gay parenting - i.e. I think I need to drop my opposition to it.
My question on gay marriage still remains though - why isn't civil partnerships enough? (That's rhetorical BTW, I know why you guys think so.)
So, thanks for all your input, it has been very instructive.
I think that's all I have to say though for now.
Hi Jonny, I get the impression you re a great Bible studier. And so wanted to mention a book for your consideration. I do believe you may find it very fruitful. (I've been using it since it came about 2 weeks ago, and found it quite life changing).
The Queer Bible Commentary.
(Now greatly reduced to under £10 if i recall )
[ 22. November 2011, 14:20: Message edited by: crynwrcymraeg ]
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My question on gay marriage still remains though - why isn't civil partnerships enough? (That's rhetorical BTW, I know why you guys think so.)
Johnny, in New Jersey, there's currently a lawsuit happening related to NJ's civil unions. A whole bunch of gay couples are suing the state over the fact that, in practice, civil partnerships aren't being treated the same as marriage.
Apparently, even when you have a whole bunch of legal documents saying that you're the next-of-kin, a lot of hospitals will still ask "But are you MARRIED?" and when you say no, won't give you access to your partner. Sure, it might get sorted out eventually, but often that's after said partner has already died.
...That's why civil partnerships aren't enough. In daily life, people really do treat them differently.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by St Deird:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My question on gay marriage still remains though - why isn't civil partnerships enough? (That's rhetorical BTW, I know why you guys think so.)
Johnny, in New Jersey, there's currently a lawsuit happening related to NJ's civil unions. A whole bunch of gay couples are suing the state over the fact that, in practice, civil partnerships aren't being treated the same as marriage.
Apparently, even when you have a whole bunch of legal documents saying that you're the next-of-kin, a lot of hospitals will still ask "But are you MARRIED?" and when you say no, won't give you access to your partner. Sure, it might get sorted out eventually, but often that's after said partner has already died.
...That's why civil partnerships aren't enough. In daily life, people really do treat them differently.
As I noted earlier, there's a reason "Separate" always gets top billing in "Separate but Equal" legal regimes. The whole purpose of creating the separation in the first place is to undermine practical equality.
Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on
:
The problem with civil partnerships is that there isn't hundreds of years of legislation and jurisprudence that defines what they are, and (in the States at least) they aren't marriage and aren't covered under marital status anti-discrimination laws.
Also, too, the State may recognize Civil or Domestic Partnerships as legally equivalent to marriage but there is no law that requires private organizations or even counties and municipalities to do so. Marriage in the U.S. should guarantee that your gym, insurance company, the county courts or the local hospital recognize one's relationship as married and treat them all equally. That guarantee doesn't exist in civil partnerships.
"Separate but equal isn't equal" isn't just an empty slogan.
[ 25. November 2011, 01:06: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
I think we're coming to the issue that Johnny S thinks that everyone on his side is basically like him; decent, well meaning, and trying to be fair. And using compassion as the overall guide. (I find it very noticeable on thinking back over the thread that with Johnny S I was focussing on harm, whereas with IngoB it was mostly legalism and Catholic Theology - the harm issue I was using the Catholic definition of a Mortal Sin).
And in probably 90% of cases Johnny S would be right. Most people aren't going to discriminate or use any excuse possible to separate the supposedly equal. (That doesn't say they will oppose it, merely that they won't lead the charge). However if we were making our laws based on the active actions of 90% of the population, murder would be legal. After all, the proportion of murderers in the population is negligable. Which means that making laws to simply cover 90% of the population is pointless. People will try to use whatever excuse they have. So not giving them any is a good start.
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
Just pulling this thread up to say that it looks like Washington State is going to be the next US state to pass same sex marriage.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The problem with civil partnerships is that there isn't hundreds of years of legislation and jurisprudence that defines what they are, and (in the States at least) they aren't marriage and aren't covered under marital status anti-discrimination laws.
Also, too, the State may recognize Civil or Domestic Partnerships as legally equivalent to marriage but there is no law that requires private organizations or even counties and municipalities to do so. Marriage in the U.S. should guarantee that your gym, insurance company, the county courts or the local hospital recognize one's relationship as married and treat them all equally. That guarantee doesn't exist in civil partnerships.
"Separate but equal isn't equal" isn't just an empty slogan.
When the effort to legalize gay marriage started,one of the proposals was to separate legal and religious status completely. Everyone,gay or straight, could have a civil partnership and all legal protections would apply to it and you get a license at City Hall. Marriage would be a private optional matter between you and your church or temple of choice, with no legal privilege whatsoever.
This was dismissed as far too radical despite claims that France does it this way and that we'd just fix the current concept of hybrid civil/church marriage. Oddly enough, I think the evangelicals and catholics may end up driving this.
So to all here who think that a civil partnership for gays is good enough, are you willing to have your relationship that gives you legal and civil rights be renamed a civil partnership? You could still get married in the church of your choice according to church rules.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
When the effort to legalize gay marriage started,one of the proposals was to separate legal and religious status completely. Everyone,gay or straight, could have a civil partnership and all legal protections would apply to it and you get a license at City Hall. Marriage would be a private optional matter between you and your church or temple of choice, with no legal privilege whatsoever.
This was dismissed as far too radical despite claims that France does it this way and that we'd just fix the current concept of hybrid civil/church marriage. Oddly enough, I think the evangelicals and catholics may end up driving this.
So to all here who think that a civil partnership for gays is good enough, are you willing to have your relationship that gives you legal and civil rights be renamed a civil partnership? You could still get married in the church of your choice according to church rules.
Whenever someone makes this "radical" suggestion, I have to roll my eyes because they've "radically" suggested the system that already exists everywhere in the U.S. for opposite-sex marriage. If you have a religious "marriage" ceremony but don't get a marriage license from the state, the state doesn't consider you to be married. (Except in jurisdictions that recognize common law marriages, which will consider you married without either a religious ceremony or state-issued license.) Likewise, even if you have a piece of paper from the state saying you're married, there's no guarantee that your church will recognize it. Just ask any number of Catholics in second marriages.
This seems a well-known fact, except when marriage is extended to same-sex couples. When that's the case some people can't seem to tell their civil rights from their religious rites. So here's a counter-proposal that seems a lot more reasonable. Given that in the U.S. the institution of marriage has been managed by the state quite successfully and without complaint (with a few notable exceptions) for over a century, those who wish a separate category for their religiously-ordered couplings should be the ones to come up with a new name. Religious unions? Divine partnerships? Hetero God joinings?
Posted by Nicolemrw (# 28) on
:
Just thought I would pop in here and point out that proposition 8 in California, that made gay marriage illegal, has been ruled unconstitutional.
Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Just thought I would pop in here and point out that proposition 8 in California, that made gay marriage illegal, has been ruled unconstitutional.
Specifically, the court stated "By using their initiative power to target a minority group and withdraw a right that it possessed, without a legitimate reason for doing so, the People of California violated the Equal Protection Clause [of the Bill of Rights]. We hold Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional on this ground."
It's on pg. 80 of this 128 page PDF.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I rather like page 4, the very first page of the judgement. Which cuts to the chase nicely:
quote:
[The Constitution] requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted.
I'm reminded of the original decision by a single judge, going through the big, wobbly list of claimed 'reasons' and saying 'nope' over and over.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
[The Constitution] requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.
I hope that no one is going to niggle over whether it really does treat different classes differently. Strictly speaking, I'm not so sure. We can answer the charge that honoring same-sex relationships creates a "special right" with the reply that it does not, in that heterosexuals as well as homosexuals are enabled to marry someone of the same sex. Prop. 8 likewise denies or retracts this right for gays and straights both.
But to press this technical point were to ignore the irony of Anatole France's statement about the law's majestic egalitarianism in forbidding rich as well as poor to sleep under bridges etc.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
I hope that no one is going to niggle over whether it really does treat different classes differently. Strictly speaking, I'm not so sure. We can answer the charge that honoring same-sex relationships creates a "special right" with the reply that it does not, in that heterosexuals as well as homosexuals are enabled to marry someone of the same sex. Prop. 8 likewise denies or retracts this right for gays and straights both.
A similar argument was advanced by the state of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia, where the state argued that inter-racial marriage was forbidden equally to all races. The court noted in Footnote 11 that this was not actually the case, but that even if it were that wouldn't be a decent excuse " . . . because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races." I'm not sure an early twenty-first century court will look any more kindly on drawing such distinctions according to gender than a mid-twentieth century one regarded such distinctions drawn along racial lines.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Just thought I would pop in here and point out that proposition 8 in California, that made gay marriage illegal, has been ruled unconstitutional.
I got divorced the year this was passed-- maybe I'll get married this year.
On a serious note-- I know the battle is not nearly over, but every step forward feels so good.
Posted by LQ (# 11596) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
But to press this technical point were to ignore the irony of Anatole France's statement about the law's majestic egalitarianism in forbidding rich as well as poor to sleep under bridges etc.
In Canada, our politicians have been quite content to ignore that irony.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
[The Constitution] requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently.
I hope that no one is going to niggle over whether it really does treat different classes differently. Strictly speaking, I'm not so sure. We can answer the charge that honoring same-sex relationships creates a "special right" with the reply that it does not, in that heterosexuals as well as homosexuals are enabled to marry someone of the same sex. Prop. 8 likewise denies or retracts this right for gays and straights both.
But to press this technical point were to ignore the irony of Anatole France's statement about the law's majestic egalitarianism in forbidding rich as well as poor to sleep under bridges etc.
The law has well and truly moved on, thank goodness, from being quite THAT technical.
Part of the issue is really that California/the people of California have said they don't accept discrimination, in the sense of different treatment without a reason. And if there's one thing that judges are good at, it's taking people at their word. It happens all the time: if you express something as a broad general principle, then judges will believe you meant it.
As much as anything, it comes back to a common issue in the whole gay marriage debate: that people claim 'marriage' means 'children'. But they then allow childless-couples-that-happen-to-be-heterosexual to be married. If marriage was genuinely about child-raising, it might actually be perfectly legitimate to permit or deny marriage on the basis of children - but then, you'd have to allow the homosexual couples with children to marry (while forbidding it for the heterosexual ones without kids or no prospect of kids).
To get around THAT, you could say that it's only for a couple raising their biological children. In which case, adoptions and blended families would be out.
This is all the courts are saying: if you're going to divide people into 2 different categories, it has to be on a rational basis that demonstrably achieves something more than saying 'because we don't like the people in this category'. The opponents of same-sex marriage have failed, twice, to demonstrate that there is any concrete reason for preferring all heterosexual couples over all homosexual couples. And in particular, pretending that "heterosexual" is synonymous "raising/having children" and "homosexual" is synonymous with "not raising/having children" just does not wash.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just to add this clip: Republican chokes up in same -sex marriage debate in Washington State
Her comment about her daughter only having a domestic partnership "which makes it sound like a Merry Maids franchise" sums it up quite neatly.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Perhaps an agent of Pope Benedict can explain:
Many women, after having the number of children they want, get their "tubes tied." The Roman Catholic bishops declare this to be sinful, because it obviates the possibility of procreation in any subsequent sexual relations. Here in the United States (probably as part of the brouhaha over whether their health care packages must cover contraception) it now transpires that many Catholic hospitals have performed the procedure nevertheless, and that Catholic women get it just as often as any others. This comes as rather an embarrassment to the bishops, and time will tell whether they will consider cracking the whip to be a pyrrhic victory. Some have tried by declaring that the offending hospitals are no longer Catholic, closing their chapels, and withdrawing chaplains.
Will we see a sulking wholesale withdrawal of the Catholic church from its historic mission to care for the sick over this rather peripheral matter?
Anyway, here's my question: may women who have voluntarily undergone this procedure (re)marry with the church's blessing? The explanation is always given that those beyond menopause or otherwise probably infertile are unimpeded from marriage because the nature of their sexual relations leaves the possibility of procreation open. But this surgery is deprecated because it no longer leaves the possibility open. So how is it that they can get married again (if they can)?
Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemrw:
Just thought I would pop in here and point out that proposition 8 in California, that made gay marriage illegal, has been ruled unconstitutional.
I got divorced the year this was passed-- maybe I'll get married this year.
On a serious note-- I know the battle is not nearly over, but every step forward feels so good.
Oh, Kelly! Are you one of the "rainbow set"?!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Only in a PFLAG sense, hon. Thanks for asking.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I;m sorry no, I didn't mean that the ruling would effect my legal rights personally, I just meant that it would be ironic if it happened. Me marrying, I mean, But it won't anyway so ....Oh, never mind.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Perhaps an agent of Pope Benedict can explain:
Many women, after having the number of children they want, get their "tubes tied." The Roman Catholic bishops declare this to be sinful, because it obviates the possibility of procreation in any subsequent sexual relations. Here in the United States (probably as part of the brouhaha over whether their health care packages must cover contraception) it now transpires that many Catholic hospitals have performed the procedure nevertheless, and that Catholic women get it just as often as any others. This comes as rather an embarrassment to the bishops, and time will tell whether they will consider cracking the whip to be a pyrrhic victory. Some have tried by declaring that the offending hospitals are no longer Catholic, closing their chapels, and withdrawing chaplains.
Will we see a sulking wholesale withdrawal of the Catholic church from its historic mission to care for the sick over this rather peripheral matter?
Anyway, here's my question: may women who have voluntarily undergone this procedure (re)marry with the church's blessing? The explanation is always given that those beyond menopause or otherwise probably infertile are unimpeded from marriage because the nature of their sexual relations leaves the possibility of procreation open. But this surgery is deprecated because it no longer leaves the possibility open. So how is it that they can get married again (if they can)?
Hosting
Hi Alogon,
that doesn't belong on this thread or on this board as it's about contraception and heterosexual marriage. The discussion of Catholic marriage teaching on this board is in the context of procreation being used as a reason to deny marriage to gay people. Questions about procreation/contraception as it affects heterosexual marriage belong in Purgatory.
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses host
(If anyone wnats to reply, please could you copy Alogon's post and start a new thread in purg for it, if he hasn't already? I can't move this thread to Purgatory as it belongs here, ta.)
Hosting off
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Thanks, Louise, but I posted it here because it does indirectly relate to the RCC's opposition to same-sex marriage. Perhaps they do not allow a sterilized woman to get married (and this would be widely appreciated as a cruel policy). If they do allow it, then their claim that marriage must be open to the possibility of procreation already has holes in it.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
Thanks for clearing that up, it can be addressed from that angle here.
Louise
Dead Horses host
[Now closing this as it's been superseded by other threads]
[ 17. May 2012, 23:55: Message edited by: Louise ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0