Marriage Laws

[wig]

I got you, RendeR. I was just wondering the number of people that are trying to change minds.

I bet there are a few.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

My point, similar to Maple Leafs', is that it doesn't matter if they had used bible verses or not, some like Butter would immediately reject their argument outright because they are a reverend and a conservative talk show host.

Much like they reject mine. So what's your point?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by wig

Stop trying to backload the topic, Chubby!

Well you did notice that I only started posting towards the end of this trhead didn't you?

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Much like they reject mine. So what's your point?

The only thing I ever rejected of yours was the silly notion that anyone opposed to you must be a homophobe or a bigot.

[Butter]

Hell, a lot of people here apparently put John Galt on ignore, so they don't even want to read anything he has to say, relevant or not. You can't just argue in a bubble. Your background helps form your opinion. So preconception, unfortunately, is something that can't be discarded in a discussion like this.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

The only thing I ever rejected of yours was the silly notion that anyone opposed to you must be a homophobe or a bigot.

I never said anything close to that. I did call wig a homophobe and bigot, though. I called those who believe homosexuality to be bad and full of pedophiles and closet sexual predators bigoted.

But I still don't understand the argument that says that gay people should not enjoy the same rights as heteros. It hasn't been made clear to me. Care to make it?

[sabotai]

I have not read this whole thread, I'm just going to assume it follows the typical script...I just want to point out two things here.

One, I'm oftan asked that considering I am a Libertarian, why I would never consider voting republican (to keep a commie-loving liberal out of office). The simple answer is because they are just as bad and hypocritical as the democrats. I find it hilarious that so many conservatives, including many on this board, who rant about not wasting tax-dollars and government time and scream about decreasing the size of government would be for spending tax dollars and government time to debate and consider adding statutes and constitutional admendments to define a word.

It's totally insane and complete waste because 1) Marriage is a religious/spiritual thing and the government should not be legislating that and 2) Most, if not all, of these that I have seen do not exclude the possibilitly of giving gays the same rights by calling it a civil Union. So in the end NOTHING is accomplished except they get to keep a single word for themselves. That is a complete waste of tax dollars and they easily could be spending their time on real issues. What, worry about crime or the economy? Try to help fix those? Nope, we got a word to protect!

My second point is if marriage is such a sacriment, why is the government legislating that in anyway? Marriage has been stated as a religious or spiritual thing by the religious right and that's why gays should be allowed to "marry" (because "religion" doesn't support it). So why is the government doing anything that involves marriage?

I said this in another thread. ALL unions licensed by the government should just be called Civil Unions. A guy marries a girl, a girl marries a girl, a guy marries a guy, a transvestite marries a hermaphrodite, they should be all called civil unions. And then just leave the word marriage to the religions. For legal and government purposes, just call them all civil unions.

Would that be acceptable, or do the religious NEED a way to seperate themselves from "the gays" (and thus calling their unions "marriages" and gay unions "civil unions")?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Would that be acceptable, or do the religious NEED a way to seperate themselves from "the gays" (and thus calling their unions "marriages" and gay unions "civil unions")?

I think that is what it boils down to.

[Cuckoo]

I agree with you Butter, and I can't speak for everyone, but I don't automatically dismiss anyone's opinion simply because of the preconceptions I have of them. I rarely, if ever, agree with John Galt, but that doesn't mean I reject his arguments as a result of that preconception. Maple Leafs' point, and I think a good one, is that several people are ignoring the actual arguments and instead choosing to focus on external things that may help "form" their opinion, as you say, but aren't necessarily an aspect of it.

In other words, I do consider myself to be a Christian, but I can argue a number of issues without resting solely upon my religious values. In this forum, though, it happens too often that someone is dismissed as "religious" and the argument is therefore ignored.

EDITED TO ADD - There was a lot posted since I finished typing. My agreement with Butter was only in his post on ignoring John Galt and such.

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

I never said anything close to that. I did call wig a homophobe and bigot, though. I called those who believe homosexuality to be bad and full of pedophiles and closet sexual predators bigoted.

But I still don't understand the argument that says that gay people should not enjoy the same rights as heteros. It hasn't been made clear to me. Care to make it?

I suspect that regardless of how many times the argument is made, you won't "understand" it because you don't agree with it. This is a fight I often have with my wife where she claims to not "understand" my opinion on a situation. I always say, "You do understand, you just don't like it."

Edited for clarification.

[Noop]

Where is The Afoci when you need him/her?

[Cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I think that is what it boils down to.

For some, I think that is what it boils down to, but I wouldn't call that universal. I also think that we have a tendency to blanket groups of people around here. I would think that there are a lot of individuals who disagree with homosexual marriage who would not define themselves as "religious" in the slightest.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

For some, I think that is what it boils down to, but I wouldn't call that universal. I also think that we have a tendency to blanket groups of people around here. I would think that there are a lot of individuals who disagree with homosexual marriage who would not define themselves as "religious" in the slightest.

One would think that, but I don't see any jumping up and down saying "ME ME!"

[wig]

*jumps up and down*

ME ME!

[Cuckoo]

I'm betting he wasn't really jumping up and down.

[CamEdwards]

umm, I'd just like to clarify that I didn't use any bible quotes.

By the way, whoever it was that mentioned slavery in regards to a precedent... you do realize it took a constitutional amendment to do away with slavery, right? The same process we're talking about to define marriage?

Bueller? Bueller?

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by sabotai

I have not read this whole thread, I'm just going to assume it follows the typical script...I just want to point out two things here.

One, I'm oftan asked that considering I am a Libertarian, why I would never consider voting republican (to keep a commie-loving liberal out of office). The simple answer is because they are just as bad and hypocritical as the democrats. I find it hilarious that so many conservatives, including many on this board, who rant about not wasting tax-dollars and government time and scream about decreasing the size of government would be for spending tax dollars and government time to debate and consider adding statutes and constitutional admendments to define a word.

It's totally insane and complete waste because 1) Marriage is a religious/spiritual thing and the government should not be legislating that and 2) Most, if not all, of these that I have seen do not exclude the possibilitly of giving gays the same rights by calling it a civil Union. So in the end NOTHING is accomplished except they get to keep a single word for themselves. That is a complete waste of tax dollars and they easily could be spending their time on real issues. What, worry about crime or the economy? Try to help fix those? Nope, we got a word to protect!

My second point is if marriage is such a sacriment, why is the government legislating that in anyway? Marriage has been stated as a religious or spiritual thing by the religious right and that's why gays should be allowed to "marry" (because "religion" doesn't support it). So why is the government doing anything that involves marriage?

I said this in another thread. ALL unions licensed by the government should just be called Civil Unions. A guy marries a girl, a girl marries a girl, a guy marries a guy, a transvestite marries a hermaphrodite, they should be all called civil unions. And then just leave the word marriage to the religions. For legal and government purposes, just call them all civil unions.

Would that be acceptable, or do the religious NEED a way to seperate themselves from "the gays" (and thus calling their unions "marriages" and gay unions "civil unions")?

I agree with you whole heartedly on this, very well posted!

However the problem is in fact that in almost every state the amendments being put forth DENY those same rights while still allowing people to have their "civil Unions". this was the largest blockade to getting anything done in MA this past month, every amendmant save one denied the very rights same sex couples are fighting for while allowing them to be recognized in a "civil union"

someone else pointed out earlier that:

Seperate but not equal, really doesn't work.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Cuckoo

I think you just made his point for him. Just because they're a reverend and a conservative talk show host doesn't make their arguments based on religion alone or even religion at all.

Exactly.

Cam is conservative. So? Does that mean every argument he makes must be religion-based?

I'm not even sure what the goal is in seperating religion-based arguments from the rest, but I figured that posting some examples was the only way to get Chubby to stop posting the same thing over and over.

[wig]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I'm not even sure what the goal is in seperating religion-based arguments from the rest, but I figured that posting some examples was the only way to get Chubby to stop posting the same thing over and over.

Backloading.

[RendeR]

As I posted earlier, I aknowledge and understand the religious side of it, I can accept the opinion of the religious that they believe its wrong and thats it. no problem.

I personally can't agree with legislating to everyone in the country to suit their personal spiritual cconscience.

Thus I asked for reasons outside the religious arena, John Galt brought up the lisppery slope idea, which is not necessarily religion based, but had in a few posts been argued down fairly well. Its still a viable consideration, but I want more.

I'm looking for something concrete that I can look at and say "wow, yer right, this is bad for everyone, so we should ban same sex marriage"

and I'm just not seeing it. I'm not trying to be assinine, I'm simply seeking knowledge beyond the all too simple religious roadblock.

that help?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Exactly.

Cam is conservative. So? Does that mean every argument he makes must be religion-based?

I'm not even sure what the goal is in seperating religion-based arguments from the rest, but I figured that posting some examples was the only way to get Chubby to stop posting the same thing over and over.

The point you ask? Is that our government shouldn't be legislating things based on one particular religions beliefs/wants.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Exactly.

Cam is conservative. So? Does that mean every argument he makes must be religion-based?

I'm not even sure what the goal is in seperating religion-based arguments from the rest, but I figured that posting some examples was the only way to get Chubby to stop posting the same thing over and over.

oh and the talk show host was not Cam, it was that Dr laura person, I'd double check to be sure thats who they meant, but I have to run out for a bit, be back later =)

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by RendeR

I'm looking for something concrete that I can look at and say "wow, yer right, this is bad for everyone, so we should ban same sex marriage"

and I'm just not seeing it. I'm not trying to be assinine, I'm simply seeking knowledge beyond the all too simple religious roadblock.

that help?

i'm looking for the same, beliefs are fine but they shouldn't be legislated with.

[tucker342]

I agree with RendeR 100% on this issue.

[CamEdwards]

Render,

You're not going to find that perfect argument that will sway you, just as I won't find an argument FOR gay marriage that will sway me. It's okay. You're firm in your belief, I'm firm in mine, and the two sides will either try to find a compromised middle ground or one group will get pissed off and spend the next thirty years or so being even MORE annoying than we both are right now.

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

The point you ask? Is that our government shouldn't be legislating things based on one particular religions beliefs/wants.

I don't disagree with that.

I have no idea what it has to do with what I posted, but I don't disagree with it.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Render,

You're not going to find that perfect argument that will sway you, just as I won't find an argument FOR gay marriage that will sway me. It's okay. You're firm in your belief, I'm firm in mine, and the two sides will either try to find a compromised middle ground or one group will get pissed off and spend the next thirty years or so being even MORE annoying than we both are right now.

Nope. Some point down the road, maybe your kids, or grandkids, will see the day when gay marriage (or something very much like it) is approved and they will wonder what all the hubbub about it was back in 2004. If the Supreme Court recognizes this as more of a civil rights issue and less of a morality one (and we all have to know this issue will be in the US Supreme Court before its through) it could happen sooner than that.

Such is the way it was with civil rights a generation ago, women's suffrage a couple of generations prior to that, and slavery a couple of generations prior to that, et al.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

I don't disagree with that.

I have no idea what it has to do with what I posted, but I don't disagree with it.


I'm not even sure what the goal is in seperating religion-based arguments from the rest, but I figured that posting some examples was the only way to get Chubby to stop posting the same thing over and over.

It has to do with the fact that there needs to be reasons OTHER than religous to pass laws/outlaw something. If someone wants to bring up a legitimate reason to outlaw something other than "in my religion it's bad" then fine.

How about if we had a islamic president and he pushed through legislation where all women had to have their faces covered (note to all, I am going on my very limited knowledge of Islam) simply because his religion called for it? People would go nuts...

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

Nope. Some point down the road, maybe your kids, or grandkids, will see the day when gay marriage (or something very much like it) is approved and they will wonder what all the hubbub about it was back in 2004. If the Supreme Court recognizes this as more of a civil rights issue and less of a morality one (and we all have to know this issue will be in the US Supreme Court before its through) it could happen sooner than that.

Such is the way it was with civil rights a generation ago, women's suffrage a couple of generations prior to that, and slavery a couple of generations prior to that, et al.

Well, we're thirty years past Roe v. Wade, and the controversy doesn't seem to have died down to me.

In fact, civil rights still seems to be a contentious issue for a lot of people. Aren't we still debating affirmative action, preferential hiring, racial profiling, etc.?

As to suffrage and slavery... again, those issues were decided by a constitutional amendment; the very same process that those supporting traditional marriage want to use. Perhaps if we really want to avoid continuing this debate thirty or forty years from now we could also start a constitutional process defining marriage as that between two people of any gender, and see which amendment has more support?

[Maple Leafs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

It has to do with the fact that there needs to be reasons OTHER than religous to pass laws/outlaw something. If someone wants to bring up a legitimate reason to outlaw something other than "in my religion it's bad" then fine.

Of course, and I don't think anyone would disagree with you. But we've shown you examples of arguments that aren't based on religion, and you insist that they are anyway because of your preconceived notions of the posters.

You're spoiling for a fight that not's really there, so you're inventing it. We all agree with you on the fact that religion isn't the only consideration. Well, maybe Bubba, but...

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Well, we're thirty years past Roe v. Wade, and the controversy doesn't seem to have died down to me.

In fact, civil rights still seems to be a contentious issue for a lot of people. Aren't we still debating affirmative action, preferential hiring, racial profiling, etc.?

As to suffrage and slavery... again, those issues were decided by a constitutional amendment; the very same process that those supporting traditional marriage want to use. Perhaps if we really want to avoid continuing this debate thirty or forty years from now we could also start a constitutional process defining marriage as that between two people of any gender, and see which amendment has more support?

Why would we need a constiutional process over something that only one religous section of the population is all pissy about?

[CamEdwards]

Chubby,

Let me see if I can sum this up for you. In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law by President Clinton. It said that for the purposes of federal government, marriage was defined as a man and a woman. Since that time, at least 38 other states have signed similar legislation into law.

In 2000, the citizens of California had a chance to vote on the issue. Prop 22 passed, and marriages not between a man and a woman are not considered valid in that state.

In Massachusetts, the State Supreme Court decided that it was unconstitutional to forbid same sex couples from marrying. Considering public support for gay marriage was about 37% at the time (it's fallen to 33% as of a few weeks ago, while support for civil unions has climbed in the state), you had a pretty big outcry from people who see this as judicial activism.

Why do some feel a constitutional amendment is needed? Because across the country the will of the people has been codified, but that ultimately doesn't matter. To protect what some feel is the most important institution, there are those willing to place a provision in our most important documents.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why would we need a constiutional process over something that only one religous section of the population is all pissy about?

Dola: by the way, please take religion out of your argument. I haven't been to church in a long long time, the amount of scripture that I can quote could fit on a post-it note, and I've never brought up God or my faith in any of my arguments.

[Craptacular]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

I've yet to meet anyone who wasn't born black.

There's got to be a reverse Michael Jackson out there somewhere!!

Sorry if someone made this joke already, but Cam's post was as far as I got before I realized I'm not going to read another 300 posts.

[ISiddiqui]

The government should have no say in marriage. It shouldn't even offer tax penalties or benefits for getting married. If you want to get married, get married, the government shouldn't give a damn one way or the other.

[ISiddiqui]

Why do some feel a constitutional amendment is needed? Because across the country the will of the people has been codified, but that ultimately doesn't matter. To protect what some feel is the most important institution, there are those willing to place a provision in our most important documents.

It would be quite a sad day if we put discrimination back into our Constitution.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Dola: by the way, please take religion out of your argument. I haven't been to church in a long long time, the amount of scripture that I can quote could fit on a post-it note, and I've never brought up God or my faith in any of my arguments.

Cam - The only argument against allowing same sex marriage which hasn't involved religion is the "if we allow that it will lead to child abuse, incest, etc..." which is rediculous so go ahead and try to give a non-religous reason for not allowing it.

[CamEdwards]

Again, I haven't mentioned child abuse. I have mentioned my fear that it could lead to consensual incestual marriage, and far more likely polygamous marriage. No less than Richard Posner of the US Court of Appeals (7th Circuit) and Eugene Volokh (who supports gay marriage, by the way) have argued that the slippery slope arguments are real and valid.

Over the course of six pages I've presented reasons why the slippery slope is real and valid, and your only argument has been "that's ridiculous". Why? Show me some legal reasons why this wouldn't open the door to a further redefinition of marriage? Otherwise, please stop using words like "ridiculous" and "silly" when legal scholars far more experienced than you see the validity of the argument.

[wig]

Chubby makes me sad.

[ISiddiqui]

I have mentioned my fear that it could lead to consensual incestual marriage, and far more likely polygamous marriage.

So what's the problem?

As long as it's consensual, I got no problems with either.

[wig]

Let's just let anyone do whatever the hell they want.

Just wait until I get my stock of assault rifles and ammo. I don't want to be left high-and-dry when the anarchy starts.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by wig

Let's just let anyone do whatever the hell they want.

Just wait until I get my stock of assault rifles and ammo. I don't want to be left high-and-dry when the anarchy starts.

nononono... not allowed to bring guns into this discussion. Guns are still evil.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This same logic could have been used to support discrimination and segregation in the South. There were laws, both federal and local, supporting segregation. I am sure that if one had taken polls to gauge public support at that time 33% in favor of equal rights would have been a pipe dream. I am sure that there would have been enormous support, at least in the South (and in some degree in the North as well) for a constitutional amendment legitamizing segregation.

Does that make it right? Just because most people think that way?

Just as there would be enormous support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as that between two people of either gender in certain segments of the country.

The honest answer is that sometimes the majority is right, sometimes it's not. It doesn't get us any closer to an answer, but in this case I believe the majority of Americans have the right to express their opinion, HAVE expressed their opinion, and are being ignored by a select few activists.

Jonah Goldberg had a column not too long ago about religious plurality and moral consensus in this country. I'll quote at length.

In short, Americans are very respectful of private faith as long as it doesn't result in behavior which conflicts with public morality. This mixture of religious pluralism and moral consensus is one of the things that makes America great. Believe whatever you want, as long as you behave the right way.

Oh sure, sometimes this sort of consensus can be suffocating for the free-spirited few "stuck" in small towns and the like. But America has always had places for free spirits to live happy lives, we call them "cities." And, yeah, there are folks who think this moral consensus is simply a totalitarian patriarchy. But, yawn, that's what they get paid to say.

Now, I've always preferred giving a lot of room to religious liberty. Places like Bob Jones University aren't my bag, but they generally keep to themselves and, besides, as a voluntary institution it doesn't force anything on anybody. More generally, by definition, all religions and their institutions are going to be a little irrational. It's irrational for so many Jews to keep kosher or Catholics to avoid meat on Fridays or Zoroastrians to wear scratchy shirts. But on the other hand, rationalism ain't no free turkey dinner either. As a personal rule, I find the more excessively rational a person claims to be the more likely he is to be a jerk toward people and faiths he disagrees with.

Regardless, there have to be limits to tolerance. That's why the growing debate over whether or not Islam was hijacked by Osama bin Laden seems more than a bit irrelevant to me. Oh, I understand why President Bush needs to say we're not at war with Islam. First, it happens to be true. Second, even if it weren't we would need to say it for propaganda purposes.

Today, NRO has a piece by law professor David Forte, who has reportedly been a key intellectual influence on the president's thinking about Islam. Mr. Forte's essay is in part a response to criticisms from Andrew Sullivan, Frank Foer, and others who claim that Islam has some serious problems that we need to be aware of. They suggest that, say, Saudi Arabian Wahhabism is the wellspring for Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Forte rebuts that "What drives bin Laden is not religious faith of any traditional kind; it is, rather, the all-too-familiar phenomenon of murderous revolutionary ideology politicizing religion for its own purposes." Referencing the heinous acts of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Forte takes the position that "nothing this evil could be religious."

Now, I find this to be a fascinating academic debate. Can religion be evil? Is there something essential to Islam in principle or in practice which requires violence? Personally, I've got a stack of books I've been reading to help answer such questions (and my not-yet-settled position is that Islam is at least part of the problem).

But, in a very important sense, such questions are irrelevant to the immediate task at hand. If you kill 6,000 innocent Americans, I don't care whether God or the radio signals in your fillings told you to do it. Murder is murder. I understand that some religions have fairly strict views about women. That's all fine. Indeed, I'm willing to nod along in agreement with plenty of things said by the Promise Keepers or social conservatives who bemoan the effects of feminism on the American family. But good golly, women shouldn't be beaten for laughing in public. They shouldn't be beaten for letting their veils drop below their chins. They shouldn't be shot for teaching girls how to read.

If I kill your son, will you feel better about it if I tell you my religion made me do it?

God's will must remain a mystery, so we cannot get satisfactory answers as to why certain religions require so many seemingly odd things. But morality is not a mystery. We have some basic rules about morality (not enough in my opinion) and we have to act on them. Period. If you want to call these ideas culturally biased, be my guest.

In fact, I recently read how the British responded to the charge. When they controlled India, wife burning was widespread. The British were horrified. But, you don't understand, they were told. Wife burning is deeply rooted in the Indian tradition, religion, and culture. The British responded, that's fine. But you should understand our tradition of hanging people who burn their wives.

Today Goldberg said:

Gay marriage proponents claim they want to join the moral consensus not live outside of it.

Makes sense, but I think that's why a majority of Americans draw the line at civil unions, not marriage. They're not ready to say that an actively gay lifestyle is just as morally correct as a heterosexual one.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Fritz

why exclude blood relatives?

Originally Posted by Fritz

why limit it to two?

Originally Posted by Fritz

why limit it to adults?

So being gay is the same as being involved in incest, polygamy, statutory rape?

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

I've said this before. Call it a "civil union" or something to that effect, and I say it should be legal.

And I say to you, why does there have to be a special name given to gay marriages?

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

And I say to you, why does there have to be a special name given to gay marriages?

Call 'em all that from a legal, governmental perspective, and leave the term "marriage" where it should be--the Church, and in religious ceremonies.

[Chubby]

finally, some people (i.e. Joe Canadian) who can make the same point I'm trying to make but in a much clearer way

[wig]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

So being gay is the same as being involved in incest, polygamy, statutory rape?

I know for 100% certainty that Fritz did not say that.

Maybe the translation to Canadian was bad.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Call 'em all that from a legal, governmental perspective, and leave the term "marriage" where it should be--the Church, and in religious ceremonies.

1st off, we've already established that the word "marriage" predates religions that we have today so it's not "your" word.

2nd, to call it something else when it's the exact same thing is to say that "marriage" is somehow better or higher than a "civil union". Somehow the "hey we'll let you go to school, just not OUR schools" thing didn't work in the south now did it?

[wig]

I'll say it again:

Being gay is not the same as being black.