In reply to:"In my experience gays are more open about such things, and less inclined to get into a fight over it. Many are quite proud of being in open relationships, in fact, the only married gay person I know in Massachusetts regards his marriage in exactly this way; open. Granted it's a small sampling, but there it is." Then later In reply to:"Marriage only deals with (ie, it supposedly settles) the issue of who has access to which sexual partner. Among gays, I haven't seen the same conflicts over access to partners, and therefore marriage would serve no purpose." As Steve and Eddie have already done a good job at addressing these two statements, I will not, other than to say it leaves me with a fair amount of trepidation about some of the reasoning, I'm still unclear on, that has been put forth in this thread. In reply to:"Other types of conflict are dealt with in other ways, typically rules, or laws, or judges. Your Dave and Bob example is something that I peripherally addressed in an earlier post... If Dave has a properly executed will, no ethical judge should permit it to be overturned..."In this scenario I presented, of course Dave can make a more air-tight will, make sure it's legal in the state that it will be executed in, of course he can make his funeral arrangements and wishes known ahead of time, thought this still ensures nothing, of course he can fill out all the living wills to make sure Bob is the final decision maker. The point is in a society that provides equal protection under the law he shouldn't have too. In reply to:"THIS is the problem that needs fixing." Wouldn't same-sex marriage, as it exists in modern America, solve all of these concerns with one fell swoop? Nothing new need be invented. In reply to:"BTW, those aren't conflicts in the way I was using the term earlier. Those are examples of the conflict resolution system working to defuse potential conflicts." As was stated before the reason for the conflict is of little concequence. The important part , as society is concerned, is that all conflicts have the same probable outcome if unarrested, that is violence. It doesn't matter if the violence is a result of an unfaithful wife, or a dispute over who gets to make the final arrangements for the dearly departed. With regard to the the statement that what was sited were examples of conflict reasolution, I think the big picture was missed. While all the conflicts I sited did have a legal resolution, it was not an equatable resolution as promised by the fourteenth amendment. As homosexuality is not illegal in our society it, must then, be held in equal standing with the rest of society. In reply to:"That's an interesting theory, but I don't see it. Heir-ship isn't really a function of marriage any more, although it was used in the middle ages for that purpose ..." That statement is confusing reason with function. In the middle ages heir-ship may have been a reason, in addition to function, for some marriages, that is not what I am referring to. Heir-ship as a function of marriage, as it is referred to here, and as it is germane to the discussion, deals with legal conveyances between couples. If I die, by virtue of matrimony as it is recognized in our society, my wife doesn't have to pay inheritance tax on my estate - ergo a function. In reply to:"Inheritances are governed by either wills or default laws, and marriage has little affect." That is not completely true. Matrimony, at least in Oklahoma, may many times trump a will. I learned this the hard way. My father, an attorney, left me a portion of his ranch. That ranch was solely in his name. However in the eyes of the court my step-mother did have a legitimate claim to an interest, of what was left solely to me, by virtue of the fact she was his wife. Matrimony does outweigh many other legal considerations and thus is important to same-sex couples. In reply to:"There are a lot of things associated with marriage that have no application to a gay union, such as the assumption of paternity, for one." What are some others? Because, by that chain of reasoning shouldn't an infertal heterosexual person be limited to a civil union as well? The point being, I think, that society does not need to make special categorizations for the obvious. In reply to:"I see civil unions as being the simple uniting of two people for the purposes of interating with governmental rules and regulations, and the actual nature of the relationship being something that is both private and irrelevant for legal purposes. I see no reason they should be limited to gays either. For example, if I was caring for an infirm parent and they needed medical care that they could not afford, the forming of a formal civil union could allow them access to MY coverage." I have no problem with this. In fact I think it's a good idea. Government can get out of the marriage business altogether and issue certificates of civil unions to couples wishing to incorporate with one another. Leave marriage to religion and culture and government need not be impacted by the debate about same-sex unions. In reply to:"I see no reason that a civil union has to be identical to a marriage to be the equal of one under the law." In what manner? What would be different? How would those difference not breed inequality? How is this going to be reconciled against the fourteenth amendment. To me personally that seems a rather dangerous statement. In reply to:"The continuation of a cohesive society is indeed the ultimate aim, but we cannot do that by lying to ourselves about what is the same and what isn't..." Nor do we need to overburden our society with categorizations of categorizations of voluminous laws who's only difference is to state the obvious. The more laws made, in such a manner, the more room there is for interpretation and obfuscation. In reply to:"The continuation of a cohesive society is indeed the ultimate aim...nor is being homogeneous necessarily an aid to cohesion." But equality is, and the undeniable inequality is what is at issue here. In reply to:"Marriage is a very specific institution that serves a very specific, and important, purpose. That purpose doesn't apply to non male/female unions..." Marriage, regardless of it original functions, regardless of it's origins, regardless of it's role in building cultures, now has, in modern American society, legal and property rights ramifications. That being the case the enequality the current system produces must be addressed. Either the government must get out of the marriage buseiness, and leave it to religion and culture, or marriage must be extended to same-sex couples. The legal entanglements of marriage and law and property rights demand attention and reconciliation as it applies to all of society. In reply to:"I still think civil unions are a better idea." As I have said, I agree. The government shouldn't be meddling in marriage.___________________________________________________Side ThoughtsThe comparison has be drawn several times, in one form or another, that you can't call a pine an oak or an oak a pine. That is true but both can be called trees. What does it matter when the similarities outweigh the differences or the obvious? That is really what this whole debate seems to boil down to, what a recognized union is called. Along those lines, with reference to those who like to site dictionaries, it must be remembered and cannot be denied that language is dynamic. That is why Oxford, Webster and the like update their dictionary's regularly. The only static languages are dead languages. As far as nomenclature, a civil union, an incorporation, whatever regardless of what a piece of paper calls it, society is going to call it a marriage. I don't foreseen anybody coming here saying, "Eddie and Adam just unionized." It just isn't going to happen. As this issue becomes less controversial and civil unions become more common it must be seen that marriage will be the term everyday people will use to describe it.
-
Gay Marriage - a secular view
-
Eddie mentioned "proof". You mentioned "substantial evidence". I'd be happy to see a shred of evidence of the harmful effects of same-sex marriage.
______If a kid has same sex parents, it's likely that at some point he will be teased. It's unfortunate; people can really be jerks. The kind of bigotry expressed in this thread unfortunately serves to enable people would make fun of "fags' kids". But times change. I'm not aware of any evidence that homosexuality is on the increase, but it is becoming more widely accepted. Elton John, Ellen Degeneris, etc. would not have been public about their sexual orientation 40 years ago. Now homosexuality doesn't seem so weird. High school students aren't coming out of the closet en masse, but it happens. Now, at university, it is no big deal to be openly gay. Gay student associations have been around for a long time.
The people who have difficulty with the idea of gay relationships and gay marriage tend to be either religious fundamentalists, or of another generation. They will be left in the dust of historical progress.
______OldFolks, I agree with your ideas on marriage versus civil unions. I'd be happy to see the government get out of the marriage business altogether, and just sanction civil unions. If a couple would like to also have a marriage ceremony, religious or otherwise, it would be up to them. The civil union would cover the legal issues that are now addressed by marriage.
I don't see that as a realistic possibility, though, so marriage should be available to M/F, M/M, and F/F couples. No reason backed up by any evidence at all has been given that opposes that idea. That some people should be relegated to a separate-but-unequal status is not justified, and it's not right.
-
In reply to:
As Steve and Eddie have already done a good job at addressing these two statements, I will not, other than to say it leaves me with a fair amount of trepidation about some of the reasoning, I'm still unclear on, that has been put forth in this thread.
After some thought on this, I am going to apologize to any and all who may have been offended by those comments. I do not personally take offense at what I perceive as positive generalizations, but I didn't slow down enough to consider that not everyone reacts the same way I do, or might interpret these generalizations as positive. For example, if someone says that blacks tend to be excellent athletes, I don't take offense. I realize that some others do though, and should have considered that in this case. My bad, and I apologize.
In reply to:
In this scenario I presented, of course Dave can make a more air-tight will, make sure it's legal in the state that it will be executed in, of course he can make his funeral arrangements and wishes known ahead of time, thought this still ensures nothing, of course he can fill out all the living wills to make sure Bob is the final decision maker. The point is in a society that provides equal protection under the law he shouldn't have too.
I heartily agree. In my view, Dave's will shouldn't have to be airtight. All it should have to do is clearly express his wishes, and that should be enough.
In reply to:
Wouldn't same-sex marriage, as it exists in modern America, solve all of these concerns with one fell swoop? Nothing new need be invented.
It would, but it's the wrong way to solve that problem. I am reminded of a commercial about a NASCAR driver giving his son a driving lesson. At every corner he said, "Turn left." Well, turning left all the time, it's still possible to get where you want to go, but a better solution is to learn to turn right.
In reply to:
With regard to the the statement that what was sited were examples of conflict reasolution, I think the big picture was missed. While all the conflicts I sited did have a legal resolution, it was not an equatable resolution as promised by the fourteenth amendment. As homosexuality is not illegal in our society it, must then, be held in equal standing with the rest of society.
Oh, so your point wasn't the conflict, it was the inequity. Seeing the word 'conflict' in that paragraph so much fooled me. :wink:
I believe I have already expressed some personal outrage at that inequity. I don't see a disagreement here.In reply to:
That statement is confusing reason with function. In the middle ages heir-ship may have been a reason, in addition to function, for some marriages, that is not what I am referring to. Heir-ship as a function of marriage, as it is referred to here, and as it is germane to the discussion, deals with legal conveyances between couples. If I die, by virtue of matrimony as it is recognized in our society, my wife doesn't have to pay inheritance tax on my estate - ergo a function.
I see. I have addressed this too, in an earlier response. I agree that what you are speaking of is one of the benefits of marriage, although the actual degree of benefit varies from state to state if someone dies without a will. I fail to see why it couldn't or wouldn't be a benefit of civil unions as well though.
In reply to:
However in the eyes of the court my step-mother did have a legitimate claim to an interest, of what was left solely to me, by virtue of the fact she was his wife. Matrimony does outweigh many other legal considerations and thus is important to same-sex couples.
This is due only to the laws attached to the social institution of marriage, laws that can be attached to any clearly defined situation, such as civil unions. The civil aspects of marriage constitute a contract, and if they are in conflict with another legal document then a judge is needed. In the case of a gay couple there wouldn't be the marriage contract in conflict with the will (although if either had children there may be some issues there).
In reply to:
Because, by that chain of reasoning shouldn't an infertal heterosexual person be limited to a civil union as well?
No, because the reasoning has nothing to do with fertility, and neither does marriage. It's the result of a law drawn up by politicians around the existing social contract. Marriage itself has nothing to do with any of these things. It's simply a reference point that many laws use.
In reply to:
Government can get out of the marriage business altogether and issue certificates of civil unions to couples wishing to incorporate with one another. Leave marriage to religion and culture and government need not be impacted by the debate about same-sex unions.
I don't know that I would leave marriage entirely to religion as there are non-religious individuals who may want the social aspects that marriage provides (described many posts ago), but it's not a bad thought.
In reply to:
In what manner? What would be different? How would those difference not breed inequality?
This one would be a bit difficult to get into deeply without extensive thought and discussion. I certainly cannot do it by myself right here, but do you regard it as impossible?
In reply to:
Nor do we need to overburden our society with categorizations of categorizations of voluminous laws who's only difference is to state the obvious. The more laws made, in such a manner, the more room there is for interpretation and obfuscation.
Given the current status of our legal system, a few clear laws would be welcome additions :wink:
In reply to:
the enequality the current system produces must be addressed. Either the government must get out of the marriage buseiness, and leave it to religion and culture, or marriage must be extended to same-sex couples. The legal entanglements of marriage and law and property rights demand attention and reconciliation as it applies to all of society.
Well, I see your point here but I am actually hoping for the third option, civil unions. I think what you describe can be done with them.
In reply to:
The comparison has be drawn several times, in one form or another, that you can't call a pine an oak or an oak a pine. That is true but both can be called trees.
Yes, and all pairing can be called couples, or united, or something similar. WRT your other comments on the ultimate social usage of marriage, now that will be good fodder for another debate, won't it?
-
I see, so the problem is that we're overly sensitive, not that your generalizations about homosexuals and their "lifestyle" are bigoted and wrong. I still don't see how homosexuals' promiscuity and infidelity is a virtue, given that it should strip them of the right of marriage.> Well, I see your point here but I am actually hoping for the third option, civil unions. I think what you describe can be done with them.Sooooo....civil unions for everyone? If people want to get "married", they can.OldFolks>> The comparison has be drawn several times, in one form or another, that you can't call a pine an oak or an oak a pine. That is true but both can be called trees.Lanky> Yes, and all pairing can be called couples, or united, or something similar. WRT your other comments on the ultimate social usage of marriage, now that will be good fodder for another debate, won't it?And why can't all of those pairings get married? You keep running into a logical dead end: The difference should keep them from having their marriages recognized by the government. Your reasons are a mixture of prejudice and philosophical esoterica, not backed up by any data.Your argument for depriving a group of people certain rights is at a dead end.Would you so easily deprive other groups of rights, or are homosexuals somehow special?
-
What about when women were denied the right to vote? the men believe that it was for the best, that if they let women vote all things would go to hell. is Gay marraige so different? what is so wrong abotu two men or two women gettign married. soemone mentioned about their "infidelity" well if they want to get married, chances are their gonna be faithful.
-
anyone using infidelity as a reason for same gender marriage hasn't looked at the divorce statistics for opposite gender marriages for 20 or more years have they. From what I have seen, infidelity seems to be one of the leading causes of divorce. Thus if infidelity is a reason for preventing people froim marrying, then it shoudl also apply to same-gender couples.Maybe we should all just live in sin and forget the piece of paper eh. hehe
-
> Maybe we should all just live in sin and forget the piece of paper eh
Even if the moral issues are unimportant, the legal issues are.
-
The kind of proof required to satisfy you will not be available until the damage is done. It seems that you just might fall into that category of people who believe it's necessary to have at least one person die at an intersection before they put up a stop-light. I believe in being a bit more prudent and pro-active than that. Any serious study on psychology, especially that of the development of children, will yield enough doubt as to the ability for a homosexual couple to bring up children (without any psychological changes in relation to those brought up by a hetero couple) in the mind of a concientious person. I'm not going to wait until some kids are wounded unesessarilly before I state that I don't think it's a good idea.Let me ask you this: Where is YOUR proof that there will not be any differences in the children raised? You see, since we're talking about the lives of children you couldn't naturally have yourself, I feel the burden of proof is upon you.
-
The kind of proof required to satisfy you will not be available until the damage is done. That's not a very good reason to deprive people of civil liberties. The same kind of thing was said by non-progressive people about giving women the vote, or blacks civil rights in the South. The world will always end...and it never does.> It seems that you just might fall into that category of people who believe it's necessary to have at least one person die at an intersection before they put up a stop-light.It's as if you're saying that every intersection needs a stop light, even if there's no data supporting the need...just in case.> Any serious study on psychology, especially that of the development of children, will yield enough doubt as to the ability for a homosexual couple to bring up children...You can say that from here to eternity, and it still won't be true. You have no such data. There is no such data. That statement is a lie.> I'm not going to wait until some kids are wounded unnecessarily before I state that I don't think it's a good idea.You're free to think whatever you like, regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof.> Where is YOUR proof that there will not be any differences in the children raised? You see, since we're talking about the lives of children you couldn't naturally have yourself, I feel the burden of proof is upon you.Wrong again, person who has never studied formal (actually, informal) logic. It is incumbent on no one to prove the negative. And in social science research, the term "proof" does not apply.Unlike homosexual parents, there is actual evidence that bathtubs are dangerous for children. Shall we ban them?
-
"> Any serious study on psychology, especially that of the development of children, will yield enough doubt as to the ability for a homosexual couple to bring up children...You can say that from here to eternity, and it still won't be true. You have no such data. There is no such data. That statement is a lie."The only lie here is your implication that that is completely what I said. Include the whole thing and my sentence takes on a different meaning. Include the full portion of my text next time, please. (Most likely a fruitless request, but at least I made it.)
-
Want proof? Go to google and search for testimonies from children that have been raised by gay parents and you'll see plenty of information supporting my argument. Out of the testimonies I read, only one child ended up being gay. But to play on a little more, that child was not adopted but instead was a biological child of one of the lesbians giving a little more lead to the reasoning there is a gay gene.If you want to be honest, I am sure there are more negative effects on children being shuffled from foster home to foster home or being raised in some “home”. I think any young child would prefer to have parents of the same sex than being shuffled around and feeling unloved and unwanted.
-
Hmmm...I wonder how many kids in foster homes started off in a gay family? I saw quite a few as a teacher some years ago.
-
yeah I am sure...... Pull that one out of your ass much?
-
You and I both wish it were so...but for different reasons.
-
Any serious study on psychology, especially that of the development of children, will yield enough doubt as to the ability for a homosexual couple to bring up children (without any psychological changes in relation to those brought up by a hetero couple) in the mind of a concientious person. That changes the meaning of what you said not a whit. It's still a lie. Repeating it loudly and often will not make it true.You're making a claim for which there is no evidence, and appealing to an authority (an informal fallacy) that has no evidence either. It's an "Everyone knows..." thing.I wonder where you would have stood during the civil right struggle of the 60's. With Ronald Reagan, no doubt. Fortunately he had some new ideas 25 years later. I wonder if you will, once homosexual couple have raised more children. (Keep in mind that adoption by homosexuals has been going on for a while.)
-
> You and I both wish it were so...but for different reasons.
Very clever. Are you making things up to try to support your case, or do you have any actual kid-of-gays-in-foster-homes data? I'll bet you don't. You are starting to sound desperate.
There are a lot of dysfunctional families. But doesn't it seem reasonable to think that, since a homosexual person has to jump over greater hurdles to have a child than an heterosexual person does, that the homosexual person is more likely to be a caring, involved parent?
-
The only thing I wanted to point it is that kids in foster homes can come from gay parents, too...nothing more. So, there are no need for any stats, Steve. Your request is pointless and has no validity for its existance.As for my sentence, it is based on my experience and the classes I've taken on the subject. So, the sentence is my opinion based on that experience...no proof required for an informed opinion. But if you wish to rebut the opinion, I suggest you have some proof of your own, or at least more experience with the subject at hand. Failing that, you're just pontificating...again.
-
Hmmm...I wonder how many kids in foster homes started off in a gay family? I saw quite a few as a teacher some years ago. Want to know why I think this is a "pulled out of the ass" statement? Because if this was true, I think you would have mentioned something about it long before now. Sometimes it's best to try and stick to facts than making things up... does nothing for your case/credibility.I think you need to look past your selfish self and look at other people. So far all I hear from you is “me me me” and how it’s going to affect your life (though you still give no evidence how gay marriage has any direct affect on you) and start looking at it from other peoples shoes.
-
Nah...I'd rather look at how it's going to effect society as a whole. That, as opposed to looking at it from either my selfish point of view...or yours.Nothing I wrote was made up, either. But since you keep quoting gay parents as being better than those of foster kids, how about you come up with some stats that show none of the foster kids come from a pair of gay parents?
-
You said:In reply to:I wonder how many kids in foster homes started off in a gay family? I saw quite a few as a teacher some years ago.The clear implication is that you saw quite a few kids of gay parents in foster care. What else could you make of that statement? I'd like to know where you found so many gay families.Then you said:In reply to:As for my sentence, it is based on my experience and the classes I've taken on the subject. So, the sentence is my opinion based on that experience...no proof required for an informed opinion.Your experience? What experience? You drop a bomb, and then you say, in effect, "trust me"? It sounds like a Big Foot sighting. How many classes have you taken on the subject of gay parenting? Did you major in it?In reply to:But if you wish to rebut the opinion, I suggest you have some proof of your own, or at least more experience with the subject at hand. Failing that, you're just pontificating...again.You still don't get it. You make a claim, you back it up. Can you prove that your neighbor is not a deity? Or would it be incumbent upon him that he is one? Get it?I'm not making a claim. I'm questioning your claims, and giving reasons why I question them. I have nothing to prove. Your fears about the affect of gay parenting on children seem far out, they don't agree with my observations, and they don't agree with the stories of children of gay families.Is your view actually predetermined by your religious beliefs, and you're just desperately trying to build a case to support those views? Is this another version of the evolution/creationism argument?