The government does not "offer" marriage...it recognizes it. Big difference. Simple recognition of something does not bestow the power to change what it means. Historically speaking, it has been between a man and a woman ONLY for a very, very long time. Long before this country (or government) ever existed.
-
Gay Marriage - a secular view
-
Get over it... things change. It's called progression: read it, learn it, get used to it.
-
Change does not necessarily result in progression. Regression is the other possible outcome...and, in this day and age of declining morals, is a far more likely outcome of any such "change".
-
Are you saying we homosexuals have lower morals than heterosexuals?
-
"Are you saying we homosexuals have lower morals than heterosexuals?"
Let's see now...where's that "rolling eyes" emoticon.
And for those of you slow on the pickup, that would be a "No...no more than the rest of the population, in general..." It's the times we live in.
-
It's the times we live inThe End Times?We live in a democracy, and general goverment recognition of same-sex marriage may happen, as it has been happening for several years in Massachsetts (so far without any obvious ill effect). It comes down to values. You don't have to accept it, and you are free not to like it; it's one of the prices one pays for living in a democracy.
-
when a justice of the peace or other paid employee of the government does the ceremony, then it is offered by the government IMHO.
-
so we should also return the blacks to slavery, take the vote away from women too, bring back arranged marriages and all those other traditional things that might also be considered regression by some? I think not. I'd sooner see the government get out of doing marriages altogether than have the good olde days return.
-
> I'd sooner see the government get out of doing marriages altogether...
In fact, they could just offer civil ceremonies, which will cover the legal issues. Anyone who wants to get married can have the religious ceremony of their choice, Christian, Pagan, or otherwise.
Isn't that how they do it in France?
-
In reply to: It hasn't been "proven", but evidence for a "gay gene" is accumulating: Perhaps, but that doesn't really have that much bearing on the issue. We know that men and women are different genetically too, but that will never give men the 'right' to get pregnant. Like I said earlier, we need to acknowledge and learn to respect our differences, not hide them in a sea of "sameness".
-
What is the sameness issue? The issue is one of limiting rights to a class of people by not having the government recognize their marriages. If people want to revel in their differences, that's fine. If people want to stick to their sameness, that's also fine. The government shouldn't tell a woman that she can't wear get a tattoo, or that a man can't nurture a child.The genetic argument shouldn't even come up, but that's what it takes to convince some people to treat others as fully human and non-defective. I think same-sex couples should be able to marry regardless of the genetic issues -- or lack thereof. It's a basic human right, just as equal pay for equal work should be.You can respect peoples differences without trampling on their rights.
-
In reply to: bottom line is if any government that promotes equality and fair play offers marriage to one groupand some other form of union to another group where both groups base their relationships on love, commitment and sex, then that government is being prejudicial. The only 'group' I know of that is offered a legal right that another 'group' does not possess is women having the right to decide to have an abortion or not. All other rights are held as individuals, not as a group. Note that 'rights' are not the same as 'protections'. In reply to: Bottom line is if a government wants to have marriage or civil union or whatevert they want to call it, then it has to apply to all people or none. It does. As individuals. Everyone has a right to marry within the definition of what a marriage is, which is the socially recognized union of a man and a woman. Note that I did NOT say "who love each other", because that doesn't appear on the marriage license which is the only concern of the role of the government in the institution. Marriage is an individual right, and like the right to be a parent it requires the recognition of society and the cooperation of a member of the opposite sex to exercise. But to be a marriage that's ALL it requires, not love, not age limits, and not sexual relations. All the rest of that is governmental hedge building concerning what THEY will recognize. It's different for different governments, but the basics as I've described above are universal.
-
In reply to:
Long before, it was only marriages of people who belong to the same race (before this country even existed in some places, I'm sure). Progress happens...accept it and move on.
And now it's only the marriages of people of legal age. Don't confuse what marriages a particular government will recognize with what a marriage is.
Progress happens, true. It happened to Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon, and Greece, Rome and France have yet to recover back to where they were. I suppose some would call that a good thing, but not everyone...
-
In 49 states, individuals don't have the right to marry someone else of the same sex. "People who want to marry someone of the same gender" is not a protected class, but it's not unreasonable to consider them as a group. A person who wants to be in a same-sex marriage has no right to do so. People who want to be in a same-sex marriage have no right to do so.> which is the socially recognized union of a man and a womanAnd why do you get to make this postulate? Culture evolves, much to the chagrin of its conservative members. In Massachusetts your statement is certainly not true. The majority of residents of that state have no problem with the idea, especially after seeing that the world didn't end when homosexual marriage began.The socially-accepted order of things 200 years ago was that blacks were not fully human, and slavery was a good thing. Fifty years ago, in the South, blacks were socially recognized as not deserving the same rights that white people did. The fact that they were citizens and paid taxes just like everyone else didn't seem to matter. I'm sure you wouldn't defend those institutions, so I hope you have a better argument than "this is how we've always done it" with regard to marriage.
-
In reply to: What is the sameness issue? The idea that there is no difference between a gay relationship and a heterosexual one. They are equal, but they are also different, and a lot of that has been discussed earlier in this thread. Insisting on calling different things by the same name is hardly a good stand for civil rights. In reply to: The issue is one of limiting rights to a class of people by not having the government recognize their marriages. I disagree. The issue is should society have to redefine a social institution that contributed to the existence of civilization to cater to those (individuals) who have the right to marry, but choose (yes, choose) not to do so under the current definition of the term. Former Governor McGreevey (now touring the book circuit) is a perfect example of this. He is gay, got married anyway, and reaped all the 'benefits' of marriage. I am aware of the fact that Western societies now use 'love' and 'sexual relations' as reasons to marry, but those aren't part of the institution itself which requires different sexes. McGreevey's marriage was a valid, socially and governmentally recognized one - that's all it takes.
-
In reply to: In 49 states, individuals don't have the right to marry someone else of the same sex. "People who want to marry someone of the same gender" is not a protected class, but it's not unreasonable to consider them as a group. By that standard, ANYTHING can be considered a qualifier for a group. "People who want to fall up", or "People who want to walk on water" for example. Just because a group wants something doesn't mean they should have it though. The real issue here is precisely the "protected class" one, and the only legal distinction that qualifies in this case is being gay. Marriage isn't sexual-orientation dependent as my McGreevey example proves, so it doesn't fall to the protected class argument. Gays can obviously marry. In reply to: > which is the socially recognized union of a man and a womanAnd why do you get to make this postulate? Culture evolves, much to the chagrin of its conservative members. In Massachusetts your statement is certainly not true. The majority of residents of that state have no problem with the idea, especially after seeing that the world didn't end when homosexual marriage began. I see I'm not the only one who makes postulates Until the vote that Massachusetts residents are currently being denied happens, you cannot say this either. In reply to: The socially-accepted order of things 200 years ago was that blacks were not fully human, and slavery was a good thing. Fifty years ago, in the South, blacks were socially recognized as not deserving the same rights that white people did. The fact that they were citizens and paid taxes just like everyone else didn't seem to matter. I'm sure you wouldn't defend those institutions, so I hope you have a better argument than "this is how we've always done it" with regard to marriage. It never fails to amaze me how people hew to the race arguments once they find out I am black. Your comparisons with race need to be qualified as applying to THIS country (USA), and that is the difference. Marriage is a worldwide institution, not a one or two country one. Let me head off the Loving v Virgina argument before you start. All parties involved in that case agreed that what the Lovings has WAS A MARRIAGE. That is a very important distinction in the "race" argument. The Loving case was about what was legal vs illegal, not what was recognized vs not recognized. The definition of marriage was never an issue in that case.Marriage is what it is. I see a lot of people who are quite happy with restrictions on marriage (such as age limits, number limits, etc) as long as they get what THEY want. I don't understand that attitude though. If we change the legal definition of marriage for one group, where is the justification for not changing that same definition for another group? I don't see one. It's far smarter to 'change' or 'evolve' by adding civil unions to the inventory and letting society's attitudes get changed that way.
-
The most ironic thing I heard after the 2000 presidential primaries was a radio interview with Alan Keyes. He was complaining about what a bad time he was given because of his race, and the rampant bigotry. He went on and on about the unfairness. Then, without missing a beat, the subject changed to gay marriage, and he sounded exactly like David Duke talking about the rights of minorities.Your color has no bearing on the discussion, other than to make me think, "How ironic. Does he care about his own rights more than he cares about other people's rights?" Unless everyone's right are protected, no one's rights are protected.Same-sex marriage is fundamentally a political question. There are many things that we do as a society that are disagreeable to various groups. They may not like it, and they may not participate in those things, but they don't set the rules for everyone, no matter how traditional their beliefs may be. An example is that many people work on the Sabbath, much to the chagrin of Orthodox Jews.Given the political nature of such issues, I wonder what became of the Barry Goldwater libertarian conservatives. Conservatism in the U.S. has become a negative force: don't do this, don't do that. In particular, I don't see how same sex marriages or civil unions affect other people. So far in Massachusetts, traditional marriages haven't dissolved en masse since homosexuals have gotten married.I'm not sure what your issue is with my "postulate". I lived in Massachusetts when same-sex marriages became legal, and for several years after there and in New Hampshire, along the Massachusetts border. Really, nothing bad happened. When I lived in Boston I had neighbors who were a gay couple, owned their own home, worked, slept, cooked dinner, and so on...just like a "normal" couple. They were monogamous, as far as I knew. I don't know whether or not they were married, but they might as well have been. I can't for the life of me understand what the problem is, other than your sensibilities are offended. There is thankfully no guarantee that your sensibilities will never be offended.You surely must understand that a lot of white people were offended when public institutions were integrated in the South in the early 60's.In the U.S., as far as the government is concerned, marriage is a legal institution. With out it, a couple needs to draft and sign a pile of legal documents to approach the rights of a couple who simply gets married. Things like health care proxies, inheritance, etc. And still, it would be impossible to file a joint tax return. And then there will be issues with other documents, like wills, that need to be kept up-to-date every time a couple changes their state of residence. Married couples don't have to deal with that sort of thing."This is how we've always done it" is not a valid argument for maintaining the status quo. Debating whether progress in the abstract is good or bad is also a non-starter. The question is, what is the gain of depriving a certain group of people the right to marry? If you're going to deprive people of a right, you'd better have a good reason. Is your reason actually one of biblical morality?________The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.-- Martin Luther King, Jr.
-
"Is your reason actually one of biblical morality?"Firstly, I think if Lankys rationale was based on biblical morality he would hardly have aired it under the title 'A Secular View'."How ironic. Does he care about his own rights more than he cares about other people's rights?" Secondly; where exactly did Lanky state, or make reference to the notion that race relations were of more moral significance than sexual orientation? (Because if he did, as I very much doubt, I must have missed that)"I can't for the life of me understand what the problem is, other than your sensibilities are offended. There is thankfully no guarantee that your sensibilities will never be offended"I can see nowhere in this thread any evidence of Lankys 'sensibilities' having been ‘offended’ by homosexuality or homosexual marriage. In fact, - he has put forward the only calm, rational, non-judgemental argument against homosexual marriage I have ever come across, on this site, or anywhere . I must add that I have homosexual friends who are a very big part of my life, and have had homosexual experiences myself which I very much enjoyed and in no way regret, before you decide to take the easy route of castigating me as a homophobic."You surely must understand that a lot of white people were offended when public institutions were integrated in the South in the early 60's"And, in the final instance, I genuinely cannot imagine how your example of the racial hatred white America is guilty of relates to this discussion.
-
* Starfish> Firstly, I think if Lankys rationale was based on biblical morality he would hardly have aired it under the title 'A Secular View'.
I haven't yet discerned a reason that same-sex marriage is a problem for the original poster, other than that mixed-sex marriage is the convention. I don't see how it impacts his life.
He claims that traditional marriage should stay as it is because:
Lanky75> he thinks it may have been integral to our survival in prehistoric times
Lanky75> "it introduces confusion"
Lanky75> " it has ALWAYS been a male/female union" (i.e., this is how it's always been done)
Lanky75> "why call a pine tree an oak?" (i.e., there's a nomenclature issue)
Lanky75> "Marriage, as it exists, serves a definitive function in society, that of establishing the right of a husband and wife to exercise reproductive exclusivity..." (considering the rate of infidelity and divorce, it doesn't seem to be doing a good job of it; nowadays, marriage has important legal purposes. In fact, it can be argued that that is the root of marriage from the very beginning of human society...or maybe even before human society)Lanky75> I see civil unions as a social experiment who's time has come. What is it specifically that those pressing for gay marriage are seeking that cannot be granted by a properly constructed civil union?
The answer to that question: second class status, as if some people are not good enough for real marriage. Are you familiar with artifice of "separate but equal"?
Lanky75> "The confusion lies in the role that marriage plays..."
Why do some people get to define the role of marriage, at the expense of others? A libertarian would say, If one is homosexual and against same sex marriage, than he shouldn't get married. The reasons given for how same-sex marriage will affect me (as a heterosexual) are really mushy. I lived in Massachusetts when same-sex marriage became legal, and for several years after. It didn't affect me in the least. Of all my heterosexual friends and acquaintances, I saw no evidence of any effect at all.
Lanky75> "I don't think we've revised our views of how civilization began much in the last 30, or even 130 years."
That is utterly false. I suggest that the original poster read some modern books on anthropology.
* Starfish> Secondly; where exactly did Lanky state, or make reference to the notion that race relations were of more moral significance than sexual orientation?
He brought up the issue of his race. For the sake of this discussion, I don't care about his race, your race, or my race. I took the liberty of assuming that he was not opposed to the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. If I was wrong, he's free to state that fact. It would make the discussion moot.
thor> "Equal rights" is a vehicle a group of man-hating lesbians used to begin the second wave of feminism in the 60's.
That was just thrown in for comic relief. Everyone seems to have an agenda. I wonder what he thinks of the civil rights movement that came shortly before the feminist movement.
Starfish> Womens demands for the same pay in exchange for the same labour...
I'm glad that we agree on the idea of fundamental fairness.
Starfish> Some latent mother issues perhaps?
No comment.
Lanky75> "...I suspect that what you are looking for isn't unity/equality, but rather 'sameness'. That way the union a gay person is in would be indistinguishable from a heterosexual one, and when people say someone is married they wouldn't be able to tell whether they were gay or straight. I understand where you are coming from, but let me explain why I think that is a bad idea."
This seems to be the crux of his reasoning. The idea of "sameness". I don't understand why it's any more important for people to distinguish a homosexual couple from a heterosexual couple, any more than it's important to distinguish a black couple from a white couple.
Lanky75> I am black.
Huh? And so...? He then goes on for several paragraphs about his experience as a black person, and how he faces discrimination. Finally, he says, "What is left is to acknowledge the difference and to make certain that it isn't used against you. That's the purpose of those little boxes, but in order for them to work they also highlight me to anyone who might want to treat me differently because of my race.
Yes, the purpose is so that some agency can keep track of which races do what in what number, so patterns of discrimination can be addressed. The fact that some people who see that information can use it to discriminate against him is an unfortunate side effect, and not the point! So there's a difference between him and a white person that causes him to be discriminated against. In that respect, I don't see his difference as something to celebrate.
That was it. He didn't go any further in explaining why it's important to recognize the difference between a same-sex couple and a heterosexual couple by not letting the same-sex couple get married.
He mentioned the Goodrich decision, which allowed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The key passage in the decision, I think, is this:
In reply to:
The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens.... the arguments made... failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples."
That was written by the chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
The original poster then cycles back the idea that differences are important:
In reply to:
But that 'sameness' is an illusion. It's a lie, because while I AM equal, I am NOT the same and never will be. Why should I lie to both myself and others and say I am the same when I'm not? It's far better that we all learn to accept our differences, and in a world where James Byrd Jr. was dragged behind a truck by a noose only 8 years ago, and his grave defaced only 2 years ago, I understand there are risks. Accepting differences may be the harder road, but it's the better one.
Once again, I don't understand how acknowledging people's differences justifies not allowing two people of the same gender to marry. Can't we celebrate our differences in ways that don't deprive some people of certain rights?
In reply to:
True, but I still can't check the "white" box until the word "white" is redefined. In your case this would be the same as deciding NOT to enter a civil union (if and when they are available) and not letting it be known that you are gay. That is certainly an option, but you (and they) are depriving everyone of the change to learn about and celebrate differences. The people you describe are permitting their fear of being singled out for being black to isolate them from the protections available for minorities under the law as well. You certainly can't claim you were discriminated against if you hide the fact that you are a minority!
Now he's really off and running with the differences thing. If it makes him happy, we can have an area on the marriage license that mentions the married party's race, religion, sexual orientation...whatever.
I wonder if the original poster answers the phone with, "Hello, I'm a black man..." After all, doesn't the other party deserve to know the truth?
In reply to:
As a minority, I have learned that I cannot stop people from being prejudiced. All I can do is to protect myself from the effects of their prejudice, and for that I need the law. If Civil Unions are made available to everyone (which is how I would do it) it still doesn't highlight gays as gay, but it can appropriately provide everything except 'sameness', which is a lie anyway.
More of the sameness issue. Apparently sameness is a great evil. To the issue of women's rights, women and men are not the same. Does that mean that women shouldn't get the same pay for the same work? Same-sex couples are not the same as hetero-sex couples. Does this mean that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to marry? What kind of logic obtains here?
He then asks, "If you could rewrite how our society and legal systems treat marriage, would you? Is there anything you would do differently?" I would allow same sex couples to marry, as the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts did. It seems straightforward to me.
In reply to:
With the advent of recent legal decisions, including things like the Lawrence v Texas decision of 2003, the right of the state to pry into our bedrooms has vanished, which means that truly different relationships can be tried. Roommates can be "partnered" and reap the benefits of medical determination, inheritance, pooled finances, tax consequences (tax treatment of marriage isn't really a benefit!), and we could leave out the things like alimony, the assumption of sexual relations, the assumption of paternity, etc that currently are part of marriage. Brothers or sisters could be partnered in a household and benefit tremendously. With the recent changes in the law it doesn't HAVE to be about sex the way marriage is.
Who is he to say that same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to pursue such things as alimony? If people don't want to deal with that sort of thing, then they can choose not to marry. But it should be their decision.
He says, "Civil unions wouldn't be identical to marriage, but they would be equal to it. That's my point, equality without 'sameness', without confusion over what is what." The sameness argument keeps coming up as the central reason in not allowing same-sex marriage. The argument, though, is a logical void. I don't know what the big concern is here. What if a couple is Chinese? Chinese people can get married. But Chinese people are not the same as white people. And, so...? So what? What the heck is the concern here?
He continues, "Now in the modern world with today's standards, marrying someone you don't love doesn't make a lot of sense, but it happens all the same." Thankfully we don't live in a Stalinist police state, and the government does not interrogate people as to their intentions and motivations when they marry. Frankly, it's no one's business but their own. Marriage for love, marriage of convenience, it's their business.
thor> Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Apparently his guitar plays only one note.
Lanky75> To use the tree example, apple trees and pear trees both grow in soil, both need water, and both reproduce with seeds grown inside of edible fruit. They have a LOT in common, but you can't call an apple tree a pear tree. Why not? Because it isn't one.
Here we go again. Another metaphor on the importance of differences. How about this: apples and pears are both different, but both can be picked from a tree, wrapped in plastic, shipped to a store, sold, and eaten. Oh, wait a minute, they're different, so they can't be wrapped in plastic. I mean, they can't both be sold at the same store. Ridiculously arbitrary? Likewise not allowing people to get married because they're different. Black people are different from white people, but both are allowed to get married. If differences are the key issue, then maybe the shouldn't. We can flip a coin and relegate one set to civil unions rather than marriage.
After that, irrelevancies about herd strategy and the Incas are discussed, and again polygamy is said to be a viable alternative to traditional 2-people marriages.
Lanky75> My reasoning for my view hinges on the value of marriage to the civilization as a whole, as a stabilizing agent, as supported by what I have said above.
More fluff. How does same-sex marriage work against the stability of society? That is a canard that opponents of same-sex marriage like to bring up, but they never seem to be able to justify the statement. It just comes up over and over and over. I have news for Lanky: Massachusetts as a society is no less stable now than it was three years ago.
There was a discussion about the possibility of a "gay gene", but I don't think that is relevant to the topic of the thread. It was followed by an irrelevant discussion about the government "offering" versus "recognizing" marriage. Following that was an irrelevant discussion about protected groups (in the legal sense).
Around and around we went, but it was never clear to me why people should be deprived of the right o marry because they're different. Is it clear to you?
* Starfish> And, in the final instance, I genuinely cannot imagine how your example of the racial hatred white America is guilty of relates to this discussion.
Whites deprived blacks of certain rights. Now opponents of same-sex marriage are depriving same-sex couples of the right to marry. To me both are wrong. It's a consistent position. For a libertarian, it's the only reasonable position.
-
That may have been the longest post ever -- period.