Gay marriage

[Quinn]

To me, civil rights is used as a magic trump card. Right up there with "it's for the children" and "common sense." I could claim that I've got a right, a civil right, to spit on the sidewalk or to marry my sister. A civil right is anything we want it to be; it's a showstopper for reasoning. Just like saying something is just common sense is expected to trump further desent.

 

So it's all well and good to say that as a citizen I have the right to marry whoever I wish, but I obviously don't. Can't marry someone that's already married, can't marry my sister, can't marry a child. The government has stuck its nose into all those; so I guess it gives them the right to slap down gay marriages.

 

----

 

 

[beemerman2k]

OK, much clearer. Thank you.

 

So what, then, is the basis for a civil right? For me, I suppose, it's best summarized in the Declaration of Independence, "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.". Yes, there are rightful boundaries on that pursuit, some of which you stated already.

 

But isn't one civil right the right to protest for changes you feel ought to be made? To me, unless society has a compelling interest in a policy, and "because that's how we've always done it" is it going to cut it as a compelling interest to many of us* with respect to this issue, what business is it of govt or society to deny responsible, tax paying adults, this recognition?

 

As has been asked already in this thread: when is it appropriate to deny someone a civil right?

 

Editors note: when I say "us", I mean those of "us" who support the rights of gays to enjoy formally recognized civil unions.

[ratfink]

The anti-gay person usually never has to confront their position on a gut-wrenching personal level. It happens sometimes when a child or grandchild reveals that they are gay and want to live openly in an honest and forthright manner.

 

Some will refuse to redefine, shun and disown their offspring and put asunder a relationship that is the gift of creation itself.

 

Others will redefine and continue their foremost duty as a parent, nurturing their child on a path to self-fulfillment.

 

I very much admire the latter.

[moshe_levy]

Fink is 100% correct. There have been several documentaries, mostly on HBO, of parents who shunned their kids after finding out they were gay. Many years later, unanimously, they all regret their decisions. As a father, I cannot imagine disowning my daughters for any reason short of them committing the worst crimes.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Can't marry someone that's already married, can't marry my sister, can't marry a child. The government has stuck its nose into all those; so I guess it gives them the right to slap down gay marriages.

 

It does indeed, IF legally the case can be made that two consenting homosexual adults marrying each other is akin to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia, respectively - following the examples you listed above. That IS the slippery slope argument, in fact, and it's made all the time today against gays, just like it was made against blacks marrying whites. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. How do I know? Well, America isn't the only country on Earth. Our Canadian members and others have chimed in to say that gays marry there, and the world did not end, nor did mass polygamy, incest, and pedophilia break out.

 

The slippery slope is not in this case, as you can plainly see, necessarily an argument propped up by reason and fact - more like fear, intolerance, and predjudice.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

Can't marry someone that's already married, can't marry my sister, can't marry a child. The government has stuck its nose into all those; so I guess it gives them the right to slap down gay marriages.

 

It does indeed, IF legally the case can be made that two consenting homosexual adults marrying each other is akin to polygamy, incest, and pedophilia, respectively - following the examples you listed above. That IS the slippery slope argument, in fact, and it's made all the time today against gays, just like it was made against blacks marrying whites. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. How do I know? Well, America isn't the only country on Earth. Our Canadian members and others have chimed in to say that gays marry there, and the world did not end, nor did mass polygamy, incest, and pedophilia break out.

 

The slippery slope is not in this case, as you can plainly see, necessarily an argument propped up by reason and fact - more like fear, intolerance, and predjudice.

 

-MKL

 

There are really two different world views in play here. One world view is that we human beings are capable of figuring out things for ourselves. Some of our decisions will be mistakes, sometimes tragic and awful mistakes, but we are capable of learning from them. Equally, some of the traditions carried forward from the past are mistakes waiting for correction. Under this world view, it really doesn't matter whether homosexual marriage is a slippery slope or not; it's not really even a relevant question, since whether we allow homosexual marriage or not is just a another step in the path of human experience which we will resolve one way or another as we view the results of our collective decision.

 

The other world view is that we human beings are not capable of figuring things out for ourselves. That laws have been set down by God or otherwise to guide us, and that whenever we deviate from those laws, it is always a mistake. The only way deviating from those laws would not be a mistake would be if, in our human weakness, we misinterpreted the laws to start with. In that case, a correction of our previously erroneous interpretation would not be a mistake.

 

I'm not sure there is any common ground for discussion between the two world views.

[moshe_levy]

I'm not sure there is any common ground for discussion between the two world views.

 

Dave, this is essentially the point we raised earlier in the thread. I do agree, if one were to take the bible literally with no deviation whatsoever, there cannot be common ground on this issue.

 

However, I don't believe most folks, even most religious folks, fall into this category. And so the way to break that argument open and declare common ground is to show that, indeed, they are "picking and choosing" biblical "abominations" based on convenience, or a less than strict interpretation *in some cases.* We covered the Old Testament - the Jewish bible - before. And we went over how the Hewbrew word used - "to'ebah" - has been translated to English as "abomination," but that, in FACT, it has several meanings such as "improper ritual," and even "foreign cult."

 

The SAME word - to'ebah - is also used to describe:

 

1) Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),

2) Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),

3) Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),

4) Cross-breeding livestock (19:19),

5) Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),

6) Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),

7) Tattoos (19:28),

8) Charging of interest on a loan (25:37),

 

 

Oh, and also "wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials." Like our motorcycle gear, for example.

 

All of the above was covered in the old post several pages ago. So take that into your context, and you will soon be able to deconstruct or tear down many arguments against gay marriage by socially conservative or religious people who, very likely, engage in one or more of the "abominations" listed above while simultaneously condemning others, even though the same word is used to describe ALL of these "sins." Right there, in the Bible. And the basic but very powerful question becomes "And if any of the other 9 "abominations" listed above is OK now, why isn't homosexuality?" The answer is obvious: Either they will be forced to admit non-compliance to the Bible in some cases, which undermines their argument entirely and in fact reveals common ground, or they will start another evasive tap dance which is easy to trap.

 

The only argument I can see working, from a religious basis (assuming for a moment we overlook the translation issue) is that said person follows all laws, without exception. Such a person can then properly argue on principle - but he will be on the marginal fringes of American life to begin with.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

I don't think the dichotomy I posited above is purely drawn on religious/non-religious lines. For, example, I consider myself to be a religious person, but I also believe that humans are generally going to figure things out for themselves, for good or bad, and that's just a fact of life that we need to learn to live with.

 

OTOH, some people who may or may not be religious otherwise believe that it is absolutely necessary for us to have rules to live by. If those rules are not religious rules, then perhaps they will substitute the Constitution as they imagine it was originally framed. I think this group includes more doctrinally religious people than the first group does; however, I believe the need to live in an environment structured by rules is more of a personality trait than a spiritual trait.

 

Also, even though it may seem that way, I'm not saying that group A is right and group B is wrong, either. They're just wired differently, and perhaps it takes both types to make a society function.

[Ken H.]

And I guess it could also be enlarged for related persons, group families or most anything else. Yes, I'm applying the slippery slope argument because I see it as one.

Well I don’t agree that theirs a slipper slope here, but even if there was, fundamentally what’s wrong with that? Isn’t changing of norms over time what marks progress of a society? If theoretically at some future decade in time society decides it’s acceptable for siblings to join in a legal marriage, then it becomes what it becomes.

 

It’s impossible to draw a hypothetical line in the sand at the ‘now’ and say we will go no farther on subject xyz. In this case who and who can marry. Today’s is just another day in the flow of time, societies, progress, faltering. Nothing more.

 

We just happen to be the people in the here and now with our panties in a wad. The people 200 years ago would be appalled at what we accept as normal now on a lot of subjects. Times change, always have, always will. It’s only our ego that we have the final definitive answer, on most anything, that gets in the way.

 

I also don't care what per cent of the population is in favor or against it. The majority shouldn't have the right to wrong the minority.

But on this subject, who’s wronging anyone? That’s what consistently bugs me about the argument against. Where’s there a victim? Who’s being harmed? It seems to me to be much to gain and little to loose by letting two people live in happiness and peace. Regardless of sexual orientation.

[pbharvey]

Where’s there a victim? Who’s being harmed? It seems to me to be much to gain and little to loose by letting two people live in happiness and peace. Regardless of sexual orientation.

 

Society is the victim. Marriage is an institution in our country. The definition of it has intrinsic value. There is a stabilizing force in the family unit.

 

If unmarried people want certain legal rights, fine but don't redefine marriage just so they can feel better about themselves.

[moshe_levy]

Society is the victim. Marriage is an institution in our country. The definition of it has intrinsic value. There is a stabilizing force in the family unit.

 

It is an institution with an astonishingly high failure rate. That's a fact. It sometimes is a DEstabilizing effect on the family unit. That, also, is a fact. So in and of itself, it has no intrinsic value. Any hetero couple, no matter how screwed up, can and do get married. There is no minimum standard as it stands. That is where you must defend it from - reality - not some 50s ideal of 95% two parent households and low single-digit divorce rate. Those days are over. I'm not cheering that - I'm just stating fact. (Read Charles Murray's new book, "Coming Apart," for an interesting conservative take on this).

 

So are you saying, for example, that a Kardashian-style 5 minute wedding has a "stabilizing force" but a gay couple together for 25 years does not? Are you saying that a marriage of convenience is more stabilizing than one of commitment? Are you saying, for example, that an opportunistic gold-digger's marriage to a pro athelete or musician that lasts 2 years and makes her rich (mission: accomplished) is more valid than a gay couple that's been together since I was born? Really? BY WHAT STANDARD? You will never, ever be able to list one, because there isn't one - except outright prejudice.

 

As I said before, ask any divorced person you know - what screws marriage up is divorce, and all that comes after it. NOT gay people.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

what screws marriage up is divorce, and all that comes after it.

 

Or more to the point, what comes before it.

[pbharvey]

So are you saying, for example, that a Kardashian-style 5 minute wedding has a "stabilizing force" but a gay couple together for 25 years does not? Are you saying that a marriage of convenience is more stabilizing than one of commitment? Are you saying, for example, that an opportunistic gold-digger's marriage to a pro athelete or musician that lasts 2 years and makes her rich (mission: accomplished) is more valid than a gay couple that's been together since I was born? Really? BY WHAT STANDARD? You will never, ever be able to list one, because there isn't one - except outright prejudice.

-MKL

 

I'm saying marriage is a stabilizing force in our society. A newly created family means something. When your children marry and have children, your DNA is passed down and becomes their heritage. Monogamy, children, structure...these things are important and yes they have intrinsic value. Look at societies or subsets within our society where the family unit is not honored. Two moms or two dads do not make an adequate substitute for a mom and a dad. There are plenty of bad parents and lousy marriages but that's no reason to change the definition of marriage.

 

I'm not prejudiced against gay people but I am prejudiced against conveying the societal title of "marriage" on any union other than one man and one woman.

[moshe_levy]

I'm saying marriage is a stabilizing force in our society. A newly created family means something. When your children marry and have children, your DNA is passed down and becomes their heritage. Monogamy, children, structure...these things are important and yes they have intrinsic value. Look at societies or subsets within our society where the family unit is not honored. Two moms or two dads do not make an adequate substitute for a mom and a dad. There are plenty of bad parents and lousy marriages but that's no reason to change the definition of marriage. I'm not prejudiced against gay people but I am prejudiced against conveying the societal title of "marriage" on any union other than one man and one woman.

 

Ahhh, were it so easy. But, of course, it's not. It never is, in such a subject. You say "I'm saying marriage is a stabilizing force in our society." I'm saying it CAN BE, but is not necessarily. And I gave you three rock solid examples, and I can give you 1,000 more. You will never be able to make the case, seriously, that marriage automatically equals stability. Now, I would never argue that a traditional, properly operating family unit (healthy, well adjusted mom and dad in marriage raising kids under one roof) is the ultimate goal to aim for. Surely there is no serious argument against that ideal. Not from me, anyway. We're definitely in agreement there.

 

But we don't live in an ideal. We live in America in 2012. And today the sky-high divorce rate, astronomical out-of-wedlock childbirth rate, and popularity of "Ashley Madison" and the like should smack you between the eyes like a Mike Tyson punch every time you *automatically* association marriage with "Monogamy, children, structure." Marriage, today, can just as easily be associated with "convenience, disfunction, and money." Sad, but true - like individuals themselves, every case needs to be judged on its own merit, not lumped into a group. 'Marriage, good! Gays, bad!' Not that easy.

 

And we touched earlier in this thread on the topic of children taken from their homes by the state, after it's found that dad is having his way with the 5 year old daughter on a nightly basis or mom thinks it's fun to put her cigs out on her son's belly when nobody's looking. Or worse. Much worse (again, my wife's a pediatric RN, so I hear the WORST on a regular basis, and I wouldn't dare share that here). And now these kids are in state homes, and committed gay couples want to adopt them, and they're told no. These couples embody what you claim you respect - monogamy, structure, and now children - and yet they're denied. They will sit in the state home and rot until a hetero couple comes along - IF that ever happens. Is that right for the children? Or for the couple which wants to adopt them?

 

The state of marriage is a mess. The reasons and complex and a breakdown of values, coupled with horrifically misguided policies, have seen to that. Everyone concerned about marriage needs to examine and address those causes, one by one. And maybe someday, the situation will improve. Until then, we know two things:

 

1) Divorce is the problem with marriages. What causes divorce among heterosexual couples? Not gays.

2) Marriage has no sanctity so long as marriages of convenience, disfunction, and money are deemed perfectly fine, while gay couples in committed, stable, loving, monogamous relationships are deemed immoral.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

 

Americans can have such an amazing contempt for the idea of individual freedom.

[Couchrocket]

The SAME word - to'ebah - is also used to describe:

 

1) Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),

2) Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),

3) Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),

4) Cross-breeding livestock (19:19),

5) Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),

6) Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),

7) Tattoos (19:28),

8) Charging of interest on a loan (25:37),

 

It is amusing to me that when we interpret the text in light of our context, and find it absurd, that thought is never given to the sitz em leben (life situation) of the culture in which it was delivered. Evidence of hubris as I see it. It cracks me up that we think we're so smart and sophisticated in "our modern age" when in fact we could learn a lot from those primitives and their stupid "God mandated rules!"

 

So, let's look at your list.

 

A couple are about justice:

- Charging interest on loans to keep the poor, poor.

- Not harvesting the corners of fields (those corners were reserved for the poor who were entitled to harvest the corners for subsistence living).

 

A couple are about purity of person, and the dignity and sancity of the body:

- The women's period issue

- Hair cuts

- Tatoos

 

Several are about the call to "separateness" of God's people from the corrupt society encompassing them (in order to reinforce and remember His promises to them):

- Not mixing seed

- Not cross-breeding livestock

- Not mixing textiles

 

In the context of the sitz em liben of the people to whom this was written is is a call to Justice, purity of person, and to remaining "holy" (separate - called out) as God's people.

 

There are analogs today, all of which I believe make for a better world, quality of life, person, and devotion to a higher power that calls us to maintain human dignity, justice, and care for those in need.

 

Pretty damn stupid, right?

 

Do your homework.

[moshe_levy]

Scott,

 

What makes you think I was attacking the rules, per se? Nowhere did I do so. I merely listed them, so that people can see what else is called out as "to'ebah." It is open to interpretation whether your take or another's is "correct," and even if yours were (which I'm not doubting,) it doesn't affect my central point, at all.

 

My central point in listing these "to'ebah" is that today, many partake in them, without thinking twice - and then go on to attack homosexuality as some special, ultra-offensive sin, as if their transgressions "don't count." I merely asked - why that one, and not the others? The sole exception being, a person who lives by this code WITHOUT EXCEPTION?

 

I see the person who follows without exception as living on principle - I didn't comment on the principle, other than to say he's at least consistent. I see the person who picks and chooses from this list as convenient for him / her as hypocritical. "Do as I say, not as I do." Nonsense.

 

-MKL

[TyTass]

I also don't care what per cent of the population is in favor or against it. The majority shouldn't have the right to wrong the minority.

But on this subject, who’s wronging anyone? That’s what consistently bugs me about the argument against. Where’s there a victim? Who’s being harmed? It seems to me to be much to gain and little to loose by letting two people live in happiness and peace. Regardless of sexual orientation.

 

Facetiously I answer ...

 

Who suffers, Ken? Why society suffers, that's who. Allowing gay marriage is condoning homosexuality and that will be the downfall of American culture. We must protect our culture from the minority ... from all people who cause fear in our society! If the majority of the people don't want something to be passed, a law shouldn't be passed.

 

Ken, of course I'm in complete agreement with you ... there is no victim here. I was just illustrating how people can, and do, use "society" as a touchstone ... a faceless, surrogate victim whenever debating "victimless issues." To me it signals the point in the debate where the person has run out of principles to argue and thus follows the appeals to emotion and inevitably ... that majority should rule!

 

I question ... Is really the government's place to continuously select which law-abiding, adult citizens will be granted the right to enter into (as Greg put it) "a bundle of contractual obligations" and realize the rights and incentives other law-abiding, adult citizens enjoy?

[Couchrocket]

Scott,

 

What makes you think I was attacking the rules, per se? Nowhere did I do so. I merely listed them, so that people can see what else is called out as "to'ebah." It is open to interpretation whether your take or another's is "correct," and even if yours were (which I'm not doubting,) it doesn't affect my central point, at all.

 

My central point in listing these "to'ebah" is that today, many partake in them, without thinking twice - and then go on to attack homosexuality as some special, ultra-offensive sin, as if their transgressions "don't count." I merely asked - why that one, and not the others? The sole exception being, a person who lives by this code WITHOUT EXCEPTION?

 

I see the person who follows without exception as living on principle - I didn't comment on the principle, other than to say he's at least consistent. I see the person who picks and chooses from this list as convenient for him / her as hypocritical. "Do as I say, not as I do." Nonsense.

 

-MKL

 

You're right. I misunderstood your intent. I apologize for the snarky tone in my post.

Scott

[beemerman2k]

This idea that Moshe calls attention to, the hand picking of which "sins" we can safely ignore and which ones we can use to safely condemn, I see at work everyday among religious people who are political. The 9th Commandment given to Moses reads

 

You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor

 

And yet we dive into this practice head first on a daily basis; its as though this commandment doesn't even exist! It is clearly listed as one of the 10 Commandments, yet we totally ignore it--even our religious political candidates have no more respect for this law as the atheist candidate would. We have all agreed to pretend that the Commandment is not there. Watch your political ads on television today, or tune into your favorite political broadcast and see if this isn't the case.

 

Yet we will comb out some passages in Leviticus to condemn homosexuality...right :smirk:

 

You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel

 

I argue that the purpose of religion is not to condemn others, but to condemn ourselves so that we can continually seek to remove the planks from our own eyes first. Then we might be able to help our brothers with the specks in their eyes.

[Ken H.]

 

I'm saying marriage is a stabilizing force in our society. A newly created family means something.

I agree.

 

Which is even more so why gay marriage should be allowed. To increase the instances of exactly that stabilizing force.

 

Two moms or two dads do not make an adequate substitute for a mom and a dad.

John Steward’s show last night could not have been more timely to this discussion. His guest was a young man named Zach Wahls who has just released a book titled, “My Two Moms: Lessons of Love, Strength, and What Makes a Family”. He chronicles the values his mothers taught him and the challenges they face, especially when one of them was hospitalized. Well worth finding online and watching the interview.

 

I'm not prejudiced against gay people but I am prejudiced against conveying the societal title of "marriage" on any union other than one man and one woman.

But that IS prejudice against gay people!

 

[beemerman2k]

I'm not prejudiced against gay people but I am prejudiced against conveying the societal title of "marriage" on any union other than one man and one woman.

But that IS prejudice against gay people!

 

No kidding. +1 big time.

[Ken H.]

Americans can have such an amazing contempt for the idea of individual freedom.

Ironic isn’t it? That the country that tramples around the world spouting its 'freedom' rhetoric can be so anti-freedom internally when it comes to some of the most simplest of things.

 

"Freedom" to the USA means 'you're free to do it MY way.'

 

As mentioned earlier in the thread, in the more progressive countries of the world gay marriage ceased to be an issue long ago. No great big ‘de-stabilization of the institution of marriage’ has befallen us. It’s just another day with parents raising their children, going to work, paying taxes, worshiping, being responsible people in stable loving marriages. That is some cases it happens to be a gay couple is little more than a footnote.

 

The USA used to be such a great leader in so many things. Now it’s not even a very good follower anymore. What the hell happened?

 

[Ken H.]

Fink is 100% correct. There have been several documentaries, mostly on HBO, of parents who shunned their kids after finding out they were gay. Many years later, unanimously, they all regret their decisions. As a father, I cannot imagine disowning my daughters for any reason short of them committing the worst crimes.

Yes, and one of the more interesting public examples of that is to watch how Cher and her son Chaz Bono’s relationship has evolved over time. While not specifically about gay, instead transgender, while she never slamming the door, clearly Cher has struggled with Chaz’s choice. But yet you can see how their relationship has evolved, for the better, over time. To the credit of both of them.

[Ken H.]

I argue that the purpose of religion is not to condemn others, but to condemn ourselves so that we can continually seek to remove the planks from our own eyes first.

Hijack, but well put. It’s the old glass house metaphor.

 

Many of the mainstream religions seem to be far more about condemning others than improving one’s self.

 

[ratfink]

Americans can have such an amazing contempt for the idea of individual freedom.

 

We make progress at a glacial pace and then there is a backlash that is scary.

 

"I'm not a bigot but _________ should not be allowed to _______ ."

 

Archie Bunker was always filling in the blanks on a statement like that and it was always a non-sequiter.

 

Phobia? Cognitive Disorder? Maybe a combination of both. Unfortunately they are so widespread that in some enclaves they are considered "normal".

[pbharvey]

I'm not prejudiced against gay people but I am prejudiced against conveying the societal title of "marriage" on any union other than one man and one woman.

But that IS prejudice against gay people!

 

No kidding. +1 big time.

 

I disagree with marriage being anything other than one man & one woman. Are people who are against poligamy prejudiced or do they just think its a bad idea?

 

Go down the list: gay marriage, multiple marriage, incestuous marriage...at some point even the most enlightened of you will throw up your hands and say, "time out - uh that's too far. Marriage was never meant to be between a woman and a horse, regardless of how ugly the woman is." We all have moral lines we don't cross - or disapprove of others crossing and still being considered "normal."

[moshe_levy]

Yes, and one of the more interesting public examples of that is to watch how Cher and her son Chaz Bonos relationship has evolved over time. While not specifically about gay, instead transgender, while she never slamming the door, clearly Cher has struggled with Chazs choice. But yet you can see how their relationship has evolved, for the better, over time. To the credit of both of them.

 

Not as interesting as Dick Cheney, or any of the others on that side of the aisle who, when it's THEIR children, all of a sudden stop condemning, and start accepting. Above someone mentioned how it's so easy to attack in the abstract, but when it's home - YOUR child, YORU grandchild, or brother, sister, etc. all of a sudden, it's not an abstract lifestyle. It's someone you love.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

I disagree with marriage being anything other than one man & one woman. Are people who are against poligamy prejudiced or do they just think its a bad idea?

 

Go down the list: gay marriage, multiple marriage, incestuous marriage...at some point even the most enlightened of you will throw up your hands and say, "time out - uh that's too far. Marriage was never meant to be between a woman and a horse, regardless of how ugly the woman is." We all have moral lines we don't cross - or disapprove of others crossing and still being considered "normal."

 

Honestly, my line is drawn at the point of the eligibility of both parties being fit to enter into a contract, because from the point of view of the law, that's what a marriage is--a contract. That eliminates children and animals.

 

Now, what about siblings? I really don't care if they are both contract eligible. There might be medical issues that make such arrangements a burden to society, but aside from that, why should I care? Same with polygamy; are all parties contract eligible? Then I don't care; knock yourself out.

 

I take the word "freedom" quite seriously. It's your life, your decisions, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness we are talking about here.

 

To me, in a free country, there is only one person who gets to decide whether something is a "bad idea" and that's the person who is making the decision. You pay your money and you take your choice, but it's all on you.

[TyTass]

Yes, and one of the more interesting public examples of that is to watch how Cher and her son Chaz Bonos relationship has evolved over time. While not specifically about gay, instead transgender, while she never slamming the door, clearly Cher has struggled with Chazs choice. But yet you can see how their relationship has evolved, for the better, over time. To the credit of both of them.

 

Not as interesting as Dick Cheney, or any of the others on that side of the aisle who, when it's THEIR children, all of a sudden stop condemning, and start accepting. Above someone mentioned how it's so easy to attack in the abstract, but when it's home - YOUR child, YORU grandchild, or brother, sister, etc. all of a sudden, it's not an abstract lifestyle. It's someone you love.

 

-MKL

And then you learn to love (or at least appreciate) the one they love.

[pbharvey]

Which wife gets the social security survivor benefits?

 

Why shouldn't unmarried people receive the same benefits as married people? Why are unmarried people discriminated against? What is it about marriage that we think is important...and to some of us "sacred"?

[beemerman2k]

Which wife gets the social security survivor benefits?

 

Why shouldn't unmarried people receive the same benefits as married people? Why are unmarried people discriminated against? What is it about marriage that we think is important...and to some of us "sacred"?

 

So first let me say this: now you're asking good questions! These questions have nothing to do with the gender of the parties involved, these are purely public policy questions that effect everyone.

 

Secondly, what makes marriage, or anything for that matter, "sacred"? its not government or society, but YOU! Right? How much does the sanctity of your own marriage derive from government or society? How much does your marriage suffer when ever a gay couple weds? Why can't other people exercise what they consider to be "sacred"?

 

Sure, as a society we might need to revisit policies that hinder our ability to exercise that most precious value called "freedom". But that's OK; let us begin

[Couchrocket]

I argue that the purpose of religion is not to condemn others, but to condemn ourselves so that we can continually seek to remove the planks from our own eyes first. Then we might be able to help our brothers with the specks in their eyes.

 

Well said. And I would add that the purpose is to drive us toward God and reconciliation.

[Dave McReynolds]

Honestly, my line is drawn at the point of the eligibility of both parties being fit to enter into a contract, because from the point of view of the law, that's what a marriage is--a contract. That eliminates children and animals.

 

Totally logical. A bright line test that few people would disagree with. However....200 years ago, that would have excluded you.

 

It's just another arbitrary line that people may scoff at 50 years from now. Or, maybe not. But it is probably impossible for any of us to predict the direction society will move during the next 50 or 100 years; the only sure bet is that there will be surprises in store for all of us.

[beemerman2k]

Totally logical. A bright line test that few people would disagree with. However....200 years ago, that would have excluded you.

 

Right, but the problem wouldn't have been the marriage law, it would have been that which makes people like me ineligibe to enter into contracts.

 

Furthermore, social recognition or not, people will still enter into "sacred" arrangements -- legal or otherwise, sanctioned or not,including slaves -- if we still had them. The issue with respect to legal recognition center around the other legal legal issues that often arise between couples: illness, death, assets, taxes, etc.

[beemerman2k]

Are there circumstances where I would oppose gay marriage? Sure. If I could see the future and know that once this arrangement becomes nationally sanctioned that churches would come under all manner of attacks because they do not recognize such arrangements, I would oppose gay marriage--absolutely.

 

I am driven by freedom; the same sense of freedom that opens the door for gay marriage also protects the freedom of religion in this country. In the same way I respect the religious freedom of churches to teach doctrines that might cast me as a black man as somehow inferior, or as cursed becuase of Noah's curse in his son Ham. I don't personally believe such views are doctrinally sound, but I do support the right of churches to hold to them.

 

Freedom is great, except for when it isn't. Tough, I'll take it anyway

[Dave McReynolds]

Honestly, my line is drawn at the point of the eligibility of both parties being fit to enter into a contract, because from the point of view of the law, that's what a marriage is--a contract. That eliminates children and animals.

 

Now, what about siblings? I really don't care if they are both contract eligible. There might be medical issues that make such arrangements a burden to society, but aside from that, why should I care? Same with polygamy; are all parties contract eligible? Then I don't care; knock yourself out.

 

I take the word "freedom" quite seriously. It's your life, your decisions, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness we are talking about here.

 

To me, in a free country, there is only one person who gets to decide whether something is a "bad idea" and that's the person who is making the decision. You pay your money and you take your choice, but it's all on you.

 

You state your position, that only those who are eligible to enter into contracts should be allowed to marry, with a lot of confidence. While a lot of people would like to limit it further than that, you don't anticipate much disagreement about excluding those ineligible to enter into a contract from marrying.

 

My point is, not so very long ago, certainly any time prior to 1950, if not 1960, virtually everyone would have expressed the same negative opinion with the same level of confidence about homosexual marriage that you express about excluding those ineligible to enter into contracts. I doubt that there were even many people (any people?) within the homosexual community at that time who believed that homosexual marriage was a civil right. Contrast this with the history of slavery and emancipation. I don't believe there was any time in history when there wasn't a significant group of people who believed and promulgated the idea that slavery was morally wrong and should be abolished.

 

This is a new idea, that has not stood the test of time. It is similar to the idea of immigrant rights: what civil rights should people have who come into this country illegally, and does our country have the right to expell and exclude non-citizens simply because we choose not to have them here? Right now, the weight seems to be that we, as a people, have the moral as well as the legal right to exclude any non-citizens that we wish to exclude, but there are voices in the wilderness that are growing in number shouting otherwise. How will we view the civil rights of non-citizens 20 years from now?

 

I don't believe a homosexual has a "civil right" to be married to another homosexual, any more than a woman has a "civil right" to be a combat pilot, or an illegal immigrant has a "civil right" to remain here. All of these are issues that are in flux, and I'm ready to accept whatever changes may come. But I believe this is more of a power struggle and a marketing campaign than a matter of civil rights. In fact, I believe the term "civil rights" has been co-opted as a part of the marketing strategy in the same way certain words are tested for use in breakfast cereal ads.

[beemerman2k]

You state your position, that only those who are eligible to enter into contracts should be allowed to marry, with a lot of confidence. While a lot of people would like to limit it further than that, you don't anticipate much disagreement about excluding those ineligible to enter into a contract from marrying.

 

My point is that this is not 1950, or even 1850! We learn, we grow, we progress. In fact, this is the primary reason I honor freedom like I do, only freedom enables a people to grow and to mature on its own time.

 

What is a civil right? It is a right endowed upon the people and recognized by government. Furthermore, we have learned time and again that wisdom dictates that the rights extended to one, need to be extended to all, barring a compelling reason to the contrary. All thread I have been waiting for a compelling reason why society needs to deny gays the right to marry. "it violates my emotions, religion, or comfort level" is not a sound basis for govt to deny another group the same rights govt grants you and I, in my view.

 

Can you articulate a reason society should deny the rights of some that it grants to others--gay marriage is the case here, but how about a general policy we can consult whenever we want to determine whether to extend a right to some that we extend to others?

 

I offered my objective standard: both parties must be contract eligible. Whats yours?

[Dave McReynolds]

I offered my objective standard: both parties must be contract eligible. Whats yours?

 

My objective standard is that a group must engage in a struggle and successfully tip the balance of power in its favor. The difference between my standard and your standard is that you are looking for a standard we could vote on, whereas my standard is what actually happens to effect a change, anywhere, anytime. It's what happened to effect racial integration, for example.

 

I personally have no objection to homosexuals marrying, or almost any other group marrying. If they want to use certain words to describe their struggle, that's their right. We have no court in this country that is headed by high school english teachers to determine whether certain words accurately describe certain situations. For example, "apple pie" has been found to cause a positive reaction in certain situations, and if they would like to use the term "apple pie" to describe their struggle, more power to them. I personally don't think "civil rights" or "apple pie" accurately describes their struggle, but they seem to be doing just fine without my help, so I don't expect my phone to start ringing from homosexual marriage headquarters asking for my help in clarifying their message (or is that massage?).

[beemerman2k]

I offered my objective standard: both parties must be contract eligible. Whats yours?

 

My objective standard is that a group must engage in a struggle and successfully tip the balance of power in its favor. The difference between my standard and your standard is that you are looking for a standard we could vote on, whereas my standard is what actually happens to effect a change, anywhere, anytime. It's what happened to effect racial integration, for example.

 

They managed to tip my thinking in their favor, and I gotta tell you that was no small thing. For a long time I couldn't have been more opposed to the idea, but it took someone who worked with me from a logical point of view to show me how my prejudices were preventing me from fair and impartial thinking. Quite sobering, actually.

 

I'm not sure I understand how what I am proposing requires any votes, though.

[moshe_levy]

They did it the hard way - by swaying public opinion that was once overwhelmingly opposed. They did not do it by legislative or judicial fiat. The public itself, once presented with the facts and arguments, has been slowly but surely more accepting. And that includes very conservative people, swayed in town hall style meetings by the testimony of other very conservative people who happen to have gay children or other relatives which they love, and which they present as "just like us."

 

"The hard road is the easy road, and the easy road is the hard road." They took the hard road - and once they win that way, it will be difficult for that win to be taken back because it will truly be the will of the people that has spoken.

 

-MKL

[taters]

huge difference take for example massachusetts.....the catholic church placed about 75% of the adoptions in the state . once gay marriage was state law they told the catholic church they had to place the kids in gay homes also.. the church said no way ,, the state sAid do it or shut down. so the church shut down its adoption agency.. result kids are the loser...

civil unions seems the way to go

[beemerman2k]

huge difference take for example massachusetts.....the catholic church placed about 75% of the adoptions in the state . once gay marriage was state law they told the catholic church they had to place the kids in gay homes also.. the church said no way ,, the state sAid do it or shut down. so the church shut down its adoption agency.. result kids are the loser...

civil unions seems the way to go

 

So issues like this are going to have to be resolved if the idea of gay marriage is ever going to take hold. I don't know the details to this story, though I do remember hearing about it in the news. This is why there needs to be a separation between church and state; let the church do it's thing, and let govt do it's thing.

 

If a couple wants to adopt a child, you can go to a govt agency or to a church. If you are gay and you want to adopt a child, you can only go to govt. end of story.

[tallman]

If the measuring stick is an "astonishingly high failure rate",

we should look at everything this way, right?

 

This year's college grads, 70% failure rate for grads to be employed in fiels, and a graduation rate (in 4 years) not much different from the divorce rate.

 

How about putting criminals in jail?

Recidivism rate can exceed 70%.

Surely putting criminals in prison is a failed program.

 

 

So

"As I said before, ask any divorced person you know - what screws marriage up is divorce, and all that comes after it. NOT gay people. "

if there were no legal divorces, marriage would not get screwed up,

right?

 

[beemerman2k]

Tim, are you saying that anyone can go to college, yet fail, and anyone can go to jail, yet fail, therefore everyone should be able to get married even though they may fail? Well, I certainly agree with you. Good point

[moshe_levy]

Tim, no, I believe you missed my point. Nobody says going to college (or jail for that matter) is an event of "sanctity," which of course means "holy" or "sacred," which further means it is beyond reproach. That word - sancity - is used to "defend" marriage. However, obviously, it is NOT an institution which is beyond reproach, and its high failure rate is perfect, undeniable proof of this.

 

Do not take this the wrong way. I am married myself, with three beautiful daughters. I do not say raising children in anything except a well functioning, intact nuclear family is less than ideal. I do not root for marriage to fail. I root for the failures to end if we examine and address what causes them, and I do not know of a single person who has or will get divorced because gay people get married. Neither do our Canadian neighbors who have now said maybe 50 times already here, that none of the gloom and doom predictions came true. None.

 

I do say if you're going to give me the jive that marriage is "holy" and "sacred" when done by heteros, then explain what standard us used to ensure this (there is none). Explain marriages of convenience. Explain marriages for money. Explain quickie marriages that end in a few months. They happen. Are they holy and sacred? Is a bullshit sham "holy and sacred" because a heterosexual person instigates it - while a committed, monogamous gay relationship invalid because no heteros are in it? Is that what we're saying now?

 

Of course these are the exceptions - not the rule. But step back and say you're gay, in a years long committed and monogamous relationship. And say that the state says to you, as follows: "A Kardashian wedding is holy and sacred. A gold-digging Heather Mills CAN get married, no problem. A dysfunctional pair of drunks or druggie losers CAN get married because they add "stability." They are holy and sacred too. YOU are not. You CANNOT get married because even though your are monogamous, and even though your relationship is years-long, and even though you embody everything which a relationship aspires to be - you CANNOT get married. Oh, and pay us the same taxes as everyone else that CAN get married and reap the financial benefits you are denied."

 

How would you feel, exactly? In other words, I am saying this: Being heterosexual, in and of itself, is certainly NOT synonymous with being "holy" or "sacred" or "stable" or any of the other wonderful words we use to describe marriage. It is NOT. The proof is divorce.

 

With so many divorces (hetero record of relationships, after all) who the hell are we to tell others they cannot get married?

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

Would it be legal to consummate a gay marriage in most states?

 

[Couchrocket]

I think all the discussion leads to my earlier point about the importance of definitions, and the equal importance of having any definition contain sufficient definitive characteristics so that the item / concept defined has "meaningful-meaning."

 

So, I propose this. Let's have some concise definitions for the term "marriage" as those who think it should be re-defined think appropriate, and provide a rationale for whatever boundary conditions you include in your definition. I think that might prove instructive.

[Dave McReynolds]

Let's have some concise definitions for the term "marriage" as those who think it should be re-defined think appropriate, and provide a rationale for whatever boundary conditions you include in your definition. I think that might prove instructive.

 

Marriage should include those persons or groups that have successfully used whatever legal means are available to them to be included within the legal definition of marriage. The "means" might include creating a favorable image of their cause through the media to gain public support, lawsuits, referendums, and/or legislative action.

 

My boundary condition is that whichever groups fail to gain legal status are outside the boundary, and whichever groups gain legal status are inside the boundary. The rationale for my boundary condition is that we have designed a legal and legislative system over more than 200 years of existence as a country to deal with issues such as this, and I have confidence that letting it work will produce the best answer possible. In the event people don't like the result, then our system also allows for subsequent corrections to be made.

[beemerman2k]

So, I propose this. Let's have some concise definitions for the term "marriage" as those who think it should be re-defined think appropriate, and provide a rationale for whatever boundary conditions you include in your definition. I think that might prove instructive.

 

I am all for this, but a definition from whose perspective? For instance, I could give my definition of marriage, but I don't feel that's all that important in this context. What is important, as far as I'm concerned, is that our country honors the freedom of its citizens to define their own idea of the role of marriage, and then exercise their ideals. There might be a set of national laws that govern marriage, but there should not be a national ideal of marriage.

 

Just among the people I know there are so many different ideas of marriage. I remember my friend Nancy Perez. When she was 21, I found her crying her eyes out. I asked her why she was so sad. She explained to me that she is 21 and childless. All the women in her family were married and had their first child by 16 years of age, and therefore she felt cursed, like an old maid or something.

 

My friend from India, Shauna. She is married and recently had her first child. She and her husband really don't like each other; she is always talking about how different they are, and how they don't like to do the same things. Their marriage was arranged by their families, as is the custom in India.

 

My friend, Babatunde, from Nigeria, had a father who had multiple wives. Babatunde's mother was one of those wives. To Babatunde, this is what marriage is about! But because he settled in this country, he had to stay with only one wife.

 

So who am I to "define marriage"?

 

Having said that, why not allow Contract Law be the starting point in constructing marriage laws? Polygamy? Go ahead. In a Partnership, aren't all the partners liable for the acts of any one partner? Same in a polygamous marriage. One partner leaves and sues for alimony or child support? ALL other partners are on the hook to provide those payments! One partner incurs big debts? Maybe buys a house and cannot pay for it? ALL other partners are on the hook to provide those payments! Now, anyone want to engage in a polygamous marriage? No? Alrighty, then