Gay marriage ban: Some questions.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by wideawake

So you're against both your sister and your best friends getting married and having children?

 

Seriously? That just doesn't add up for me. How can you love your friends, wish only happiness for them and in the same breathe deny them that happiness?

 

They don't want to get married. They don't want children of thier own. Not all gays want to be married and have children to be happy. I think you need to think about this a little more before you shoot your mouth off.

I don't think you are as smart as you think you are. It' s really not to hard to understand.

[moimeme]

Thanks for aptly proving my point. Now where again is that logic and reasoned discussion you mentioned?

[jenny]

Badman,

 

if she did want to get married and adopt children, would you stop her?

 

i'm not arguing anymore, i'm just curious. my roomate is a terrific, loving, supportive, kind, boy. he volunteers, he's fantastic with children, and he is seriously the best boyfriend i have ever seen to his partner. he does want to get married someday; and he would love to be able to raise children. should he be stopped from marrying his boyfriend?

[wideawake]

Originally posted by BadMan

They don't want to get married. They don't want children of thier own. Not all gays want to be married and have children to be happy. I think you need to think about this a little more before you shoot your mouth off.

I don't think you are as smart as you think you are. It' s really not to hard to understand.

 

 

Arrg....the whole point of the thread was in regard to gay marriage...and then you post that your have gay friends and gay sister....it's not exactly a huge leap to speculate that perhaps one of these multiple gay couples that you're so close to may indeed wish to get married or have children at some point.

 

Thanks for letting me know that not all gay people wish to get married or have kids, that's a huge revelation.

 

And if you think that my very straight-forward comment was 'shooting my mouth off".....brotha you need to get a thicker skin...

 

Feeling a little sensative today?

 

For what it's worth, I really doubt you even know any gay people much less have any that are a close part of your life. You just don't strike me as someone who could handle those types of relationships.

 

Sorry didums...you're full of crap.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by jenny

Badman,

 

if she did want to get married and adopt children, would you stop her?

 

i'm not arguing anymore, i'm just curious. my roomate is a terrific, loving, supportive, kind, boy. he volunteers, he's fantastic with children, and he is seriously the best boyfriend i have ever seen to his partner. he does want to get married someday; and he would love to be able to raise children. should he be stopped from marrying his boyfriend?

 

I don't have the power to stop anyone. I would as I said earlier like the chance to vote on it.

[jenny]

if you could, would you? let's say you have the deciding vote about whether or not your sister or my roommate is allowed to get married to their same-sex partners. i just want to know how you would vote.

[wideawake]

Originally posted by BadMan

I don't have the power to stop anyone. I would as I said earlier like the chance to vote on it.

 

Actually you said that the thought of gay marriages makes you sick. Here's your exact quote below.

 

"The whole issue is about gays getting the same bennefits as heteros.

Don't laugh about the goat- if gay marriages are made legal- that will be the next movement- as well as incest, pedophilia- who know what else. Makes me sick."

 

Ergo - if your sister ever did wish to marry you would not only be sick at the thought, but also place her in the same category as pedophiles.

 

Nice family values you got there bro.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by wideawake

Actually you said that the thought of gay marriages makes you sick. Here's your exact quote below.

 

"The whole issue is about gays getting the same bennefits as heteros.

Don't laugh about the goat- if gay marriages are made legal- that will be the next movement- as well as incest, pedophilia- who know what else. Makes me sick."

 

Ergo - if your sister ever did wish to marry you would not only be sick at the thought, but also place her in the same category as pedophiles.

 

Nice family values you got there bro.

 

Yeah o.k. what ever. I know what I said. There is no contradiction there. If my sister did get married it would make me sick. Luckily she doesn't want to. Gays and pedophiles aren't in the same category. I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth. I'm saying legalizing gay marriages will lead to the decline of our society. Come on people stay with me.

[moimeme]

I'm saying legalizing gay marriages will lead to the decline of our society. Come on people stay with me.

 

Nope because your assesment/prediction is just plain wrongheaded. You can have it, thanks.

[BadMan]

Originally posted by moimeme

I'm saying legalizing gay marriages will lead to the decline of our society. Come on people stay with me.

 

Nope because your assesment/prediction is just plain wrongheaded. You can have it, thanks.

 

Wait for it.

[jenny]

actually, when you place incest and pedophilia on the same slippery slope as homosexuality, it does imply a comparison of similar undesirables, which, in this case, is basically false.

 

so, you would not allow your sister or my roommate to get married to their same-sex partners, if you had that hypothetical power, is that correct? just a simple yes or no, and i'll leave you be.

 

 

i simply want to know which you would feel is more important: your disgust, or her (or my roommate's) love and desire to share that love.

[cdn]

I'm saying legalizing gay marriages will lead to the decline of our society.

 

Nah, we're pretty close to bottom already. Not sure we can actually decline much more than we already have.

 

Has anyone read any of Arnold Toynbee's works, specifically the 12-volume A Study of History? He defines what creates civilizations and what makes them fall. Western civilization currently meets nearly all his measures as being ripe for a fall.

 

Here's one of his better-known quotes: "To be able to fill leisure intelligently is the last product of civilization."

[jester]

How is a ban on gay marriage constitutional? I do not quite understand the argument concerning how marriage should be changed through legislature (versus the court system)

 

 

In Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Kennedy wrote the following in the Supreme Court Majority Opinion, striking down a Texas statute making illegal the comission of sexual acts between consenting Gay adults in the privacy of their home:

 

 

 

The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process [**526] Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter." Casey, supra, at 847, 120 L Ed 2d 674, 112 S Ct 2791. HN17 The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

 

I would argue that the 14th Amendment right to Liberty and Equal Protection gives adult Gays the right to marry, and to possess all the legal incidents of marriage. The right to marry and the right to engage in consensual sex in the privacy of one's home both should be permitted to occur without governmental interference.

No legitimate or compelling state(as opposed to religious, moral, civilisational or aesthetic) interest justifies interfering with either fundamental right.

 

I'm perplexed by amending the Constitution to deny a discrete, occasionally persecuted minority a fundamental right. The question is: Can an Amendment to the Constitution itself be unconstitutional? That question has never been answered, but it might be here.

[jenny]

thank you so much - that is exactly the kind of thing i was looking for - jester, you're rigourous and meticulous, as usual. that's perfect.

 

can i quote this post in full on my listserve? i want someone to answer that final question.

[jester]

Yes, jenny.

[cdn]

Thanks Jester. I am still left wondering when and why the state got involved in the business of marriage to begin with.

 

One of the reasons that this issue is so clouded, imo, is that marriage originated as a religious covenant, defined in the Bible as being one man and one woman. At some point (when? mid-1800's I think) it became a government "privilege," since those desiring this status had to pay a fee, fill in forms, etc. In essence, in spite of presumed church/state separations, government abolished religious marriage and instituted in its place civil marriage (it did allow religious cermonies to be performed, but these ceremonies had to comply with all civil requirements). Oh, to be sure, government did nothing so drastic as use a word like "abolish." But once civil marriages were created, they were the only marriages legally recognized. Religious marriage became a "nice to have" for those folks so inclined. Marriage was no longer about a covenant but was instead a legal status. This was bound to lead to problems and it has.

 

I think it's important to understand that rejecting a civil definition of marriage is not the same as being homophobic. It's not helpful to the discussion to attack everyone so opposed as wanting to see homosexuals returned to the closet, or the re-instatement of slavery, etc. (By the same token, it is also not helpful for others to equate homosexuality with other societal problems, most commonly pedophilia.)

 

My personal belief is that when we allow governments to define our rights, we limit them. I would prefer less legislation rather than more and I believe that the US Constitution, on balance, is the best piece of law ever written. It's not perfect, but I think it has been monkeyed with way too much, particularly by jurists with agendas.

[jester]

Good points, cdn. Unfortunately, the Gay marriage debate is taking on fierce aspects of the Abortion debate. Two sides, both minority, with most people in the middle.

 

In the Abortion debate, the right-to-lifers want abortions outlawed, period. The pro-choice people want abortion on demand.

 

Most Americans are of the opinion that all abortions should not be banned , but abortions should not be as easy to obtain as a ham sandwich.

 

I suspect most Americans want to keep the term "marriage" for men and women. Gays can have their "civil unions" with all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions would be a "marriage" in everything but name. It may come down to semantics.

 

The power of the word.

[jenny]

a very interesting, and thoughtful post. this is the point i had initally heard that was the one i wanted to understand in full:

 

I think it's important to understand that rejecting a civil definition of marriage is not the same as being homophobic. It's not helpful to the discussion to attack everyone so opposed as wanting to see homosexuals returned to the closet, or the re-instatement of slavery, etc. (By the same token, it is also not helpful for others to equate homosexuality with other societal problems, most commonly pedophilia.)

 

My personal belief is that when we allow governments to define our rights, we limit them. I would prefer less legislation rather than more and I believe that the US Constitution, on balance, is the best piece of law ever written. It's not perfect, but I think it has been monkeyed with way too much, particularly by jurists with agendas.

 

 

i have a few questions:

 

marriage does not predate the bible? i don't know very much about civilizations in antiquity, but i do know for certain ancient greece and rome had both the concept and vocabulary of marriage. maybe i misunderstood your post.

 

and if marriage should be ideally maintained as a spiritual convenant, should those who firmly have no belief whatsoever in any gods be allowed to partcipate?

[meanon]

I think it's important to understand that rejecting a civil definition of marriage is not the same as being homophobic

 

I can see this distinction cdn but is it sensible to reject it for gays when it's available for others? I was not bothered about getting married and would never have done so in a church. In pregnancy the services we were offered, the amount of involvement of my partner in decisions affecting my health, changed once we got married. We looked into making legal provision other than marriage to ensure, for example, that our children were not taken into care if I died. It wasn't easy, there was not as much legal precedent as we expected. In the end it was easier to get married. I expect gays encounter similar problems which reinforces the prejudice they suffer about the nature of their union.

 

It is the exclusion that's the problem. If civil marriages did not exist the exclusion would not be a problem, but they do.

[cdn]

marriage does not predate the bible? i don't know very much about civilizations in antiquity, but i do know for certain ancient greece and rome had both the concept and vocabulary of marriage. maybe i misunderstood your post.

 

Maybe I misunderstood yours! I was writing in the context of the gay marriage issue that has taken storm in America. I'd have to more research before I could speak intelligently about marriage in ancient civilisations.

 

and if marriage should be ideally maintained as a spiritual convenant, should those who firmly have no belief whatsoever in any gods be allowed to partcipate?

 

Well, that's where govt. has mucked it up, in my view. (Again, I am speaking of America for this part - not necessarily exclusively, but I don't have enough knowledge of other systems to comment). Various "rights" and "responsibilities" have been imposed on marriage participants since its inception. At one time, married men were required to support their wives and children. At others, men could marry at 14 and women at 12. The list has changed over the 150 years of civil marriage. A recent marriage penalty most people are familiar with has to do with inequitable tax treatment. The govt. certainly has had its hand in the bsuiness of love and commitment! But many of the other "rights" we associate with marriage are simply business decisions. For instance, the ability to put a spouse on an insurance policy is often cited as a benefit that gays are being denied. But this is NOT a benefit of marriage; it is a policy decision of insurers.

 

In other words, I don't believe that marriage should be a legal state. I don't believe that married people should be conferred different legal rights (or responsibilities, for that matter) from other folks. In that context, returning marriage to its religious roots does not hurt non-believers.

 

I am in a rush and probably not doing a good job here. Please don't pounce. I will elaborate when I can (assuming I am making as big a hash of this as I suspect I may be). However, since I'm not here on weekends much, that might be Monday morning! Sorry, sorry....

[meanon]

LOL cdn you make perfect sense as always - join us again when you can

[jester]

It is the exclusion that's the problem. If civil marriages did not exist the exclusion would not be a problem, but they do.

 

It's the exclusion and who's doing the excluding that troubles me. No one, not LAMBDA, not the ACLU, seeks to force churches to marry Gays. Gay marriage is not being forced down any congregation's throat.

 

It's government, local governments at that, supposedly separate and apart from any religion that refuse to issue marriage licenses to adult partners of the same sex. Two hot and horney 18 year olds, who met 3 days ago, can get a license in most jurisdictions. On the other hand, two 40 year olds, who've been living together monogamously for 15 years, can't get a license if both ARE women.

 

That type of disparate treatment, by the government, is irrational, offensive, exclusionary and demeaning. The message to these Gay partners is: Because you love and are commited to a person of the same gender, you are not morally qualified for a license. The state recognizes the straight 18 year olds' fly-by-night relationship. It refuses to acknowledge the validity of the infinitely more serious relationship of the passionately committed Lesbian 40 year olds.

 

Why should the State, not a church, but the State, care about the gender of the adult I choose to marry?

 

When two adults want to marry, what business is it of government to withhold licenses from relationships with which it morally disapproves?

[dyermaker]

How is a ban on gay marraige discrimination? Gay people can marry whoever they

want. They just can't marry the same sex.

Pardon my unkindness, but that's a damned stupid thing to say. Gay people WANT to marry people of their same sex, because they're gay.

 

The whole issue is about gays getting the same bennefits as heteros.

Don't laugh about the goat- if gay marriages are made legal- that will be the next movement- as well as incest, pedophilia- who know what else. Makes me sick.

The slippery slope argument is an argument made by people who don't have anything else to say. Incest and pedophilia are crimes, because they are forms of sexual abuse. Homosexuality is something you just don't like, because you're ignorant. Makes ME sick.

 

No because an interacial marriage can produce children.

Children who may grow up to be prejudicial, ignorant, and hateful. Like you

 

I don't want control- just the chance to vote with the rest of my fellow americans..

I vote that you get shot. What? You don't like that? What if I got the majority to vote to waste you--does that sound American? The entire reason we have a Bill of Rights is so that the minority is protected from the unjust electorate, if such an occaision arises.

 

I don't want control- just the chance to vote with the rest of my fellow americans..

We're not talking about biology, we're talking about Civil Rights. From a LEGAL spectrum, marriage does not imply love, sex, companionship, or procreation--merely federal benefits to two human beings.

 

The question is: Can an Amendment to the Constitution itself be unconstitutional? That question has never been answered, but it might be here.

Jester, it's been answered before. Look at Prohibition, that was an unconstitutional ammendment. You'll see it answered again, when Mister Bush's political diversion is shot down.

 

The power of the word.

Jester, I respect your opinion on the matter, but if you actually read and listen to what the homosexual movement, stemming out of San Francisco, are saying, they don't care about semantics at all. They just want their rights, that's all. It's not about dignity, people will always look down on homosexuals, and they don't care. Watch this cartoon from San Francisco cartoonist Mark Fiore:

 

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0407/fiore.php

[jester]

Great link, Dyer.

[moimeme]

Excellent, Dyer!