The shameful gay marriage ban. [Archive] - Page 16

12-01-2005, 05:37 PM

Pretty much what Kramer said. I don't want to turn this into a thread about my love life, but polyamory or gay childbearing, the principle is the same when it comes to one-size-fits-all doctrines. You can't assume that others want what you want, or need what you need, or fear what you fear. "There are as many ways to live as there are men" and all that.

Or, to sneak in some gratuitous verse from that frustrating old bastard Kipling:

Then I stripped them, scalp from skull, and my hunting dogs fed full,
And their teeth I threaded neatly on a thong;
And I wiped my mouth and said, "It is well that they are dead,
For I know my work is right and theirs was wrong."

But my Totem saw the shame; from his ridgepole shrine he came,
And he told me in a vision of the night: --
"There are nine and sixty ways of constructing tribal lays,
And every single one of them is right!"

I don't mean to drag this on any further with your love life Noah, but I see a connction here between this post and many others. The theme in many seems to be 'what works for you might not work for me'. In matters of morality it translates into 'what is wrong to you might be right to me'. Anthony has brought this up before, rightfully calling it what it, moral relativism. This ideology says that there are no moral absolutes and says that the subject is able to make for themselves an individual stucture for morals.

While we all have a conscience, it's not always right. As with all human faculties it is affected by countless factors, mood, awareness, understanding, etc. And somehow, in this world of billions of independent persons, there seems to be an agreement on certain basic moral principals. The idea of killing people, stealing, lying, disobeying, all see to come with a negative connotation regardless of race, nation, or creed. On the flip side as well principals of love, giving, sharing, forgiveness all seem to have with them a positive connotation.

How then, in a world of independent minded, free thinking, conscience bearing people is this this pattern possible? Is it out of convenience, chance, consensus, or is it based on something much larger that we all as humans share? Is it something that each person must come to understand on their own, or is it something that seems to come with being human?

What this points to is the idea of an objective morality. A morality independent of a persons subjective acknowledgment. Think of it like gravity. Gravity exists regardless of whether we acknowledge it, if we have a name for it or have a mathematical proof for it. It applies to everyone and everything in the universe. So too with morality. It's not something science needs to discover, or has to be written in stone tablets on a mountain top, it exists outside of ourselves.

Gravity isn't subjective. No one can say that gravity does not affect them. If someone is at the edge of a cliff and tells himself that gravity does not affect them and continues to walk off the cliff, he will die. So too with morality. Just because you don't acknowledge it's existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And if you walk off a moral cliff, you can expect the same fate.

I'm not saying this to condemn anyone. Nor am I trying to point fingers. Instead I want you to see the world for what it is. Not as a confusing mess, but a beautiful masterpiece, regardless of your religious persuasion or philosophy. Morality can be confusing and hard to understand, and even more difficult to follow, but like gravity, it's what keeps us from floating away.

I hope this helps.

Login:

west3man

12-01-2005, 05:39 PM

I'm not sure if you're deliberately skipping my posts or not, but in case you didn't see the latest (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2275427&postcount=3746), there you go.I don't mean to drag this on any further with your love life Noah, but I see a connction here between this post and many others. The theme in many seems to be 'what works for you might not work for me'. In matters of morality it translates into 'what is wrong to you might be right to me'. Anthony has brought this up before, rightfully calling it what it, moral relativism. This ideology says that there are no moral absolutes and says that the subject is able to make for themselves an individual stucture for morals.

While we all have a conscience, it's not always right. As with all human faculties it is affected by countless factors, mood, awareness, understanding, etc. And somehow, in this world of billions of independent persons, there seems to be an agreement on certain basic moral principals. The idea of killing people, stealing, lying, disobeying, all see to come with a negative connotation regardless of race, nation, or creed. On the flip side as well principals of love, giving, sharing, forgiveness all seem to have with them a positive connotation.

How then, in a world of independent minded, free thinking, conscience bearing people is this this pattern possible? Is it out of convenience, chance, consensus, or is it based on something much larger that we all as humans share? Is it something that each person must come to understand on their own, or is it something that seems to come with being human?

What this points to is the idea of an objective morality. A morality independent of a persons subjective acknowledgment. Think of it like gravity. Gravity exists regardless of whether we acknowledge it, if we have a name for it or have a mathematical proof for it. It applies to everyone and everything in the universe. So too with morality. It's not something science needs to discover, or has to be written in stone tablets on a mountain top, it exists outside of ourselves.

Gravity isn't subjective. No one can say that gravity does not affect them. If someone is at the edge of a cliff and tells himself that gravity does not affect them and continues to walk off the cliff, he will die. So too with morality. Just because you don't acknowledge it's existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And if you walk off a moral cliff, you can expect the same fate.

I'm not saying this to condemn anyone. Nor am I trying to point fingers. Instead I want you to see the world for what it is. Not as a confusing mess, but a beautiful masterpiece, regardless of your religious persuasion or philosophy. Morality can be confusing and hard to understand, and even more difficult to follow, but like gravity, it's what keeps us from floating away.

I hope this helps.

Login:

Spackling Compound

12-01-2005, 05:43 PM

I think Spack was directing that at login.

Maybe I'm missing something?
No, I was directing it to those who responded to him as if he were attacking them. Or those whom he was trying to explain a point to and treated him as if he dropped out of the gazing ball in the English Garden circa 1845.

There's reality and diversity and all that but sometimes..well..its a bit silly.

Cam63

12-01-2005, 05:45 PM

You really don't understand how diversity can be a wonderful thing.

west3man

12-01-2005, 05:55 PM

No, I was directing it to those who responded to him as if he were attacking them. Or those whom he was trying to explain a point to and treated him as if he dropped out of the gazing ball in the English Garden circa 1845.

There's reality and diversity and all that but sometimes..well..its a bit silly.
I stand corrected, if confused by that assessment.

I didn't see anyone go off on login. There was a certain level of condescension, deliberate or otherwise, in login's comments. I explained why. Maybe you disagree, but I don't see where anyone did anything on the level of in-breeding jokes.

12-01-2005, 06:50 PM

I'm not sure if you're deliberately skipping my posts or not, but in case you didn't see the latest (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2275427&postcount=3746), there you go.

I didn't mean to skip over your reply on purpose, instead I tried to incorporate it into my last post. You mentioned a country where polyamourous relationships are the norm and how monogomamy would seem odd. To that I answered back with the idea that morality is objective to all, not subjective to sertain countries.

An example of this might be a country like South Africa where AIDS is spreading faster than a cold. Many of these tribes live with the cultural belief of polyamourous relationships. Men and women have multiple partners at the same time. To them, this is normal behavior. They, for whatever reason do not see anything wrong with it. But like my previous example using gravity states, no one can escape morality. Many of them are playing on the cliff and falling off. No matter how much their culture loves and approves of polyamourous relationships, that isn't going to stop the spread of AIDS.

Excuse me while I get off topic for just a moment and delve a bit deeper into this example to prove a point... Some might say that the way to solve the problem in South Africa and elsewhere is to pass out condoms and teach people about having safe sex. Sounds good on paper. But the reality is much more complex. In South Africa and other African nations, people barely have enough to eat, few have jobs, homes, or money. It's pretty bad. If the solution is simply to pass out condoms to these people, where will they keep them? You're telling me that people who don't even have enough food are going to go through the trouble of keeping a supply and daily using condoms with their 4 girlfriends? In addition, the culture there is under the impression that you can get rid of AIDS by having unprotected sex with virgins. Wonderful.

What is the solution? Find a cure for AIDS? Yes. And guess what. We already have a cure. It's called monogamy. It's truly revolutionary and 100% effective. Let me explain. If all the people in the world refrained from premarital sex from this day forward, AIDS would stop spreading entirely. No new partners would be infected. If this were to continue on, the AIDS virus would be non existent in two generations. Gone. No need for drugs, condoms, treatments. Just zip your pants up, have sex with only one person, and we're done.

So back to my point. To say that polyamourous relationships are good just because a bunch of people do it and make it normal is not sound logic. Morality follows certain rules. We may not like those rules, we may not follow those rules, we may not even really know where those rules came from, but the fact is they're there like it or not. And rather than carry on like they don't exist, and getting bent out of shape because of them, I think it'd be best to learn them and try and follow them.

I hope answered your question in there somewhere...

Login:

Corrina

12-01-2005, 07:03 PM

It's called monogamy. It's truly revolutionary and 100% effective. Let me explain. If all the people in the world refrained from premarital sex from this day forward, AIDS would stop spreading entirely.

In the other corners of your universe, there's a Lollipop Land, a Chocolate heaven, and the land of eternal happiness, yes?

EdContradictory

12-01-2005, 07:11 PM

I didn't see anyone go off on login.
Oh, I did. I totally called him an idiot after he denigrated and insulted my marriage.

login seems to live in a land of romantic make-believe where someday... someday he'll find the Buttercup to his sweet Westley. Someday...

Or he'll just live the rest of his life sad and alone.

Whichever.

Ian Boothby

12-01-2005, 07:17 PM

Oh, I did. I totally called him an idiot after he denigrated and insulted my marriage.

login seems to live in a land of romantic make-believe where someday... someday he'll find the Buttercup to his sweet Westley. Someday...

Or he'll just live the rest of his life sad and alone.

Whichever.

It's hard to say which is worse, the person who angrily attacks you and calls you names and insults you or the calm person who spouts the most vile things in a consending but civil manner. Login is the latter. After reading his posts I get very creeped out. There's a simple solution to AIDS... jeez.

Jeff Brady

12-01-2005, 07:21 PM

Of course monogamy would get rid of AIDS completely, except for those who already have it. It would spread to their partner, and their children. No, monogamy won't 'cure' AIDS. Education will.

To whom is morality objective? Why didn't this being spread the idea all over Earth thousands of years ago, instead of narrowly focusing on such a small part? You'd think an all-powerful Creator would have the time and energy to do so.

Gilda Dent

12-01-2005, 07:23 PM

Gilda, just out of curiosity, when you have a child will there be a man in the child's life? Uncle, grandfather, biological father?

Yeah, there will be men in our children's lives. My brother, my wife's brothers and her father will all be involved. My brother may be the sperm donor (he's our backup), which will make my adopting the child a lot easier.

Gilda

TCJohnson

12-01-2005, 07:26 PM

That's cool. Speaking as somebody who was raised by two women (mother and grandmother) if you have a boy having a man in his life to talk to will be important.

west3man

12-01-2005, 07:37 PM

I didn't mean to skip over your reply on purpose, instead I tried to incorporate it into my last post. You mentioned a country where polyamourous relationships are the norm and how monogomamy would seem odd. To that I answered back with the idea that morality is objective to all, not subjective to sertain countries.

An example of this might be a country like South Africa where AIDS is spreading faster than a cold. Many of these tribes live with the cultural belief of polyamourous relationships. Men and women have multiple partners at the same time. To them, this is normal behavior. They, for whatever reason do not see anything wrong with it. But like my previous example using gravity states, no one can escape morality. Many of them are playing on the cliff and falling off. No matter how much their culture loves and approves of polyamourous relationships, that isn't going to stop the spread of AIDS.As you say, polyamorous relationships aren't the REAL problem, just like a short supply of condoms isn't.

Excuse me while I get off topic for just a moment and delve a bit deeper into this example to prove a point... Some might say that the way to solve the problem in South Africa and elsewhere is to pass out condoms and teach people about having safe sex. Sounds good on paper. But the reality is much more complex. In South Africa and other African nations, people barely have enough to eat, few have jobs, homes, or money. It's pretty bad. If the solution is simply to pass out condoms to these people, where will they keep them? You're telling me that people who don't even have enough food are going to go through the trouble of keeping a supply and daily using condoms with their 4 girlfriends? In addition, the culture there is under the impression that you can get rid of AIDS by having unprotected sex with virgins. Wonderful.

What is the solution? Find a cure for AIDS? Yes. And guess what. We already have a cure. It's called monogamy. It's truly revolutionary and 100% effective. Let me explain. If all the people in the world refrained from premarital sex from this day forward, AIDS would stop spreading entirely. No, it wouldn't, since people cheat - even in marriages.

If they didn't, new problems would develop.

No new partners would be infected. If this were to continue on, the AIDS virus would be non existent in two generations. Gone. No need for drugs, condoms, treatments. Just zip your pants up, have sex with only one person, and we're done.

So back to my point. To say that polyamourous/polygamous relationships are good just because a bunch of people do it and make it normal is not sound logic. Morality follows certain rules. We may not like those rules, we may not follow those rules, we may not even really know where those rules came from, but the fact is they're there like it or not. And rather than carry on like they don't exist, and getting bent out of shape because of them, I think it'd be best to learn them and try and follow them.

I hope answered your question in there somewhere...I'll look and see. For now, I'm just interested in responding to what you've said.

The "rules" you're talking about aren't as simple as you make them out to be.

Not everyone who contracted AIDS got it from pre-marital promiscuity. Not everyone who got AIDS broke "the rules" and had to pay the price.

It's not just about not liking those rules or where they came from. It's about the fact that there will always be some obstacle in this world for its inhabitants to overcome. Finding connections between poor outcomes and so-called poor behavior is too frequently an example of poor logic.

After all, every person on this planet could sex up almost every other person on this planet, without spreading AIDS - if they all got AIDS tests first... or used condoms... or were better educated... or any number of things.

It seems that you, like so many others (myself included, sometimes, I'm sure) chose the solution that is nearest to your own values. Not the worst thing in the world, but it can have its consequences - both positive AND negative.

west3man

12-01-2005, 07:39 PM

Noah Johnson

12-01-2005, 07:40 PM

First off, you've got moral relativism confused with moral nihilism. Common mistake, but does mean that you don't know what you're talking about.

Secondly, you're making an astonishing leap from the notion of some basic moral principles to a prescriptivist notion of behavior. I'm going to guess this is based on a combination of religion and binary thinking. (See? I admit I'm guessing.) I'd wager that your thinking is going roughly, "I see evidence of universal moral principles... therefore these must come from God. Therefore, the description I've received of God's particular prescriptions for human behavior must be universal moral law." I'm sure when I phrase it like that, its flaws are rather more apparent, but c'mon... doesn't the basic shape of the thoughts look familiar?

You must understand, though, that I do consider myself a moral man. I also, however, draw a distinction between morality and ethics. Ethics are based on things far more transitory than morality, but are, in a given person's life, also very important. For example, professional ethics dictate that a lawyer keep his client's business in strictest confidence. Now, is there anything morally wrong with a lawyer shouting on the street "Hey! Mr. Donaldson just changed his will again!"? No, not really. But it is grotesquely unethical within the frame of reference of the law profession and a society that respects it.

Likewise, as long as I conduct my love affairs with kindness, my moral obligation to my fellow humans is fulfilled. The rest of it, the honesty, the respect, the etiquette, all comes from my own sense of ethics; what it is right to do with people one is emotionally involved with.

Now, of course there's no clear demarcation where morality leaves off and ethics take up. But the specific number of love affairs I choose to engage in at a given time? How the hell does that have anything to do with a universal moral principle? That's just me acknowledging that I love women too much to try and force one woman to be everything I love, and that life gives us too few opportunities to really love someone that we should pass any up just because of bad scheduling.

Of course, I would never try to force my ethics on anyone else. That would be wrong. Persuade them, sure. Let them know that I think their way of doing things is sub-optimal, maybe. Turn into a snarky, judgemental fucker around people who think torturing innocents is okay, you bet your ass. But demand that someone else follow my path just because it works for me? Hell no.

Try that approach, login. See how it works for you.

west3man

12-01-2005, 07:41 PM

Oh, I did. I totally called him an idiot after he denigrated and insulted my marriage.
Ahh. I remember you saying login said something about your marriage.

Wish I remembered what that was. No disrespect intended, but I've seen people take offense just because someone suggested solutions to the "gay marriage problem" that might change the name of existing marriages. They thought it was disrespectful when no insult was intended.

I'm not saying that's you - just that I'll reserve judgement til I can find the post.

Thanks for saying, though.

Noah Johnson

12-01-2005, 07:42 PM

Yeah, there will be men in our children's lives. My brother, my wife's brothers and her father will all be involved. My brother may be the sperm donor (he's our backup), which will make my adopting the child a lot easier.

Gilda
I think that's healthy. Also, good idea about your brother. Closer genes to your own, stronger legal standing... good thinking.

west3man

12-01-2005, 07:44 PM

It's hard to say which is worse, the person who angrily attacks you and calls you names and insults you or the calm person who spouts the most vile things in a consending but civil manner.
Manner can be a sign of intent.

login recognized the assumptions he/she made and then apologized to Noah. The post, as a whole, was lacking somewhat, but the apology seemed genuine, to some of us.

Intent and manner make all the difference, in my book. If nothing else, refraining from calling one's "opponent" a syphilitic orangutan may help keep the discussion about the topic instead of each person's pride. Once that happens, it's all down-hill from there.

Gilda Dent

12-01-2005, 07:45 PM

The idea of killing people, stealing, lying, disobeying, all see to come with a negative connotation regardless of race, nation, or creed. On the flip side as well principals of love, giving, sharing, forgiveness all seem to have with them a positive connotation.

I agree that those things are generally considered good things. Those are exactly the kinds of things that strongly connected gay couples share with each other, and the kinds of things that allowing for legalized gay marriage would promote.

It's called monogamy. It's truly revolutionary and 100% effective. Let me explain. If all the people in the world refrained from premarital sex from this day forward, AIDS would stop spreading entirely.

While I think this is fantasy land thinking, I feel I must point out that allowing same-sex couples to marry would reduce the amount of pre-marital sex.

I'm a little surprised you can't see how most of your arguments apply as well to same-sex couples as to heterosexual ones.

Gilda

Charles RB

12-01-2005, 07:59 PM

An example of this might be a country like South Africa where AIDS is spreading faster than a cold. Many of these tribes live with the cultural belief of polyamourous relationships. Men and women have multiple partners at the same time. To them, this is normal behavior. They, for whatever reason do not see anything wrong with it. But like my previous example using gravity states, no one can escape morality. Many of them are playing on the cliff and falling off. No matter how much their culture loves and approves of polyamourous relationships, that isn't going to stop the spread of AIDS.

Oh, you did not just say "no-one escapes morality" in response to the AIDS epidemic in Africa. That is seriously scummy.

And seeing as large areas of Africa aren't inhabited by polygamous tribes but by more monogamy-based cultures, but are still suffering from AIDS anyway, it doesn't make logical sense to say that polygamy is why they're suffering.

And it also doesn't make logical sense that "no-one escapes morality" for polygamy but thieves, crimelords, corrupt political figures, rapists and murderers escape morality all the time. They're not getting infected with a hideous disease.

What is the solution? Find a cure for AIDS? Yes. And guess what. We already have a cure. It's called monogamy.

And that doesn't make logical sense either, when we're talking about poor countries with severe health care problems and AIDS can be spread via blood transfusions, unsterile medical equipment, organ transplants and other such methods that don't involve sex at all.

If all the people in the world refrained from premarital sex from this day forward, AIDS would stop spreading entirely. No new partners would be infected. If this were to continue on, the AIDS virus would be non existent in two generations. Gone. No need for drugs, condoms, treatments. Just zip your pants up, have sex with only one person, and we're done.

Again- it gets spread through shoddy health care (and also by junkies using unclean needles). And getting raped by someone who has AIDS, in which case you've got AIDS despite doing nothing wrong. And people who don't know they have AIDS getting married and having children who are infected with it, whilst also infecting their spouses unwittingly.

lucasb

12-01-2005, 08:30 PM

...somehow, in this world of billions...there seems to be an agreement on certain basic moral principals. The idea of killing people, stealing, lying, disobeying, all see to come with a negative connotation regardless of race, nation, or creed. On the flip side as well principals of love, giving, sharing, forgiveness all seem to have with them a positive connotation...what this points to is the idea of an objective morality. A morality independent of a persons subjective acknowledgment.

Racism, tribalism, bigotry, intolerence, oppression of minorities/females...

Qualities displayed at one time or another by virtually every people on Earth.

Just because an idea is near-universally accepted doesn't make it right. Only as civilizations have matured are such notions discarded. Slowly, in most cases.

If I thought it would be destructive to our children, I wouldn't have any. It won't. Our children will have a teacher with a master's degree (soon to be a PhD.) in reading (me) for one parent and a medical engineer with a PhD. in biochemistry for the other. They'll have frequent contact with my brother, my wife's brothers and with my wife's father to provide them with positive adult male role models. They won't have any contact whatsoever with my father for the same reason. They'll have parents who have made a concerted effort to learn what it takes to be a good parent ahead of time, and who apply those principals to their parenting techniques. We'll make mistakes, sure, but being gay isn't one of them.

Will you adopt me, Gilda?

EdContradictory

12-01-2005, 09:02 PM

Ahh. I remember you saying login said something about your marriage.

Wish I remembered what that was. No disrespect intended, but I've seen people take offense just because someone suggested solutions to the "gay marriage problem" that might change the name of existing marriages. They thought it was disrespectful when no insult was intended.

I'm not saying that's you - just that I'll reserve judgement til I can find the post.

Thanks for saying, though.

I'll save you the trouble, it was here:
http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=2270035&postcount=3672

Let me get this straight. A marriage license is a demonstration of a formal commitment to one another? Says who? Half of the marriages in the U.S. end in divorce. How does a marriage license hold two people together any better than chewing gum? It's a legal document, and one that is as easily void as it is to get. Trying to get out of a mortgage is more difficult that getting out of a civil marriage.

How then is a document that means so little seen as the ultimate in relational commitment? Saying that a civil marriage license's purpose is to show love and commitment is like saying that my drivers license purpose is to show my unwavering love of my car. That's not what a civil marriage license is intended to do. That's not it's purpose.

...

So while there are many reasons to be married, marriage through the state in the civil sense, getting a state marriage license as a sign of commitment seems absurd since it's no more binding than a movie ticket, and joining for financial reasons with no intent for children makes you a mooch.
My wife and I were married in a civil service by a judge. And we are quite committed and celebrated our sixth anniversary this past October. I find his comments rude, uninformed, and painfully naive.

Based on login's "understanding" of love and marriage, I can only assume he's between the ages of 12 and 14 and has never actually been in love or in a committed relationship. Thus, he still has that loopy "idealized" fiction in his head that teenagers sometimes have about riding off on a white horse and living happily ever after once his true love says those three little words to him...

Gilda Dent

12-01-2005, 09:09 PM

That's cool. Speaking as somebody who was raised by two women (mother and grandmother) if you have a boy having a man in his life to talk to will be important.

I agree, particularly for a person of color, having a man to look up to is good for helping a boy learn how to be a good man. I think having an adult male role model will be good for a girl as well, teaching her that she deserves to be treated with respect and dignity by the men in her life so that she doesn't end up with someone like my stepfather.

I think that's healthy. Also, good idea about your brother. Closer genes to your own, stronger legal standing... good thinking.

Yep. It'll make the adoption very smooth, because the state where he lives allows for direct private adoption by family members. My wife gives birth, he signs over his parental rights to me, and bingo, I'm a co-mommy.

Gilda

JeffreyWKramer

12-01-2005, 09:19 PM

Morality can be confusing and hard to understand, and even more difficult to follow, but like gravity, it's what keeps us from floating away.

Your concept of morality is juvenile.

There are thousands of cultures on earth, and while they do have certain moral elements in common - mostly those which are obviously adaptive, qualifying more or less as "common sense" - there are many significant differences as well. The idea that you or anyone, or any group, has the "right" morality is arrogant, the sort of hubris which unfortunately is reinforced by many faiths - this is the problem with how religions tend to teach that their way is the only "right" one, namely, arrogant people believe that.

Really, you seriously need to get over this idea that others need your advice, that you have any special perspective relevant to others, and that your way is the way.

JeffreyWKramer

12-01-2005, 09:22 PM

What is the solution? Find a cure for AIDS? Yes. And guess what. We already have a cure. It's called monogamy. It's truly revolutionary and 100% effective. Let me explain. If all the people in the world refrained from premarital sex from this day forward, AIDS would stop spreading entirely. No new partners would be infected. If this were to continue on, the AIDS virus would be non existent in two generations. Gone. No need for drugs, condoms, treatments. Just zip your pants up, have sex with only one person, and we're done.

More arrogance. The problem isn't non-monogamy, the problem is HIV. The cultures in question functioned just fine without having to follow your model. They do need to change to adapt to the existence of HIV, and monogamy should certainly be considered, but this is more of your one-size-fits-all mentality. The key is safe sex, not everyone-act-the-same.

TCJohnson

12-02-2005, 12:01 AM

I agree, particularly for a person of color, having a man to look up to is good for helping a boy learn how to be a good man.

I didn't know you were black! ;) (Yes, I know you are Asian.)

Noah Johnson

12-02-2005, 02:19 AM

Really, you seriously need to get over this idea that others need your advice...
Now, be fair. The urge to kibitz is universal, and I'm as guilty of it as the next guy. I think you'll find you've occasionally indulged it yourself.

the4thpip

12-02-2005, 07:28 AM

Interesting stuff.

"It's a bit disappointing. It feels like it's one step forward and still another one step backwards," he told Reuters news agency.
[/I]
By itself, that line makes the activist sound a bit like an ingrate.

But another article quotes more from the statement and puts it a little in context:

But the Constitutional Court gave Parliament a year to make the necessary legal changes, disappointing activists -- some of whom have been waiting years to marry.

"We were thinking we would be calling our friends today and inviting them to our wedding," said Fikile Vilakazi, of the Forum for the Empowerment of Women, who proposed to her partner more than six months ago. "Now they are asking us to wait another year."

Vilakazi worried lawmakers could attempt to water down the decision (by) introducing a different category of marriage for same-sex couples.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/southafricahighcourtoksgaymarriage;_ylt=AsVdhkJJAt ImOT2tp_fFUTVhr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJV RPUCUl

west3man

12-02-2005, 07:41 AM

By itself, that line makes the activist sound a bit like an ingrate.

But another article quotes more from the statement and puts it a little in context:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/southafricahighcourtoksgaymarriage;_ylt=AsVdhkJJAt ImOT2tp_fFUTVhr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJV RPUCUl
I can imagine the frustration. I can also imagine people being so eager to do what they consider to be the right thing, that they fail to make other necessary considerations.

The gay marriage debate is part of a much larger issue. A year may feel like an eternity, but if these people's intentions are pure, it's best to tread carefully.

JeffreyWKramer

12-02-2005, 08:16 AM

Now, be fair. The urge to kibitz is universal, and I'm as guilty of it as the next guy. I think you'll find you've occasionally indulged it yourself.

Sure, but I generally give advice when it's asked for, rather than assuming that someone who has a relationship style I don't prefer needs me to tell them what they should be doing.

Noah Johnson

12-02-2005, 08:18 AM

When gay marriage was briefly legal in Portland last year, it was like a citywide party. Marriage mania. Huge lines outside the courthouse, people bringing food and drinks to those waiting in line, folks who got their license turning up at religious organizations and event halls all over the city for ceremonies and parties, happy couples everywhere.

Then, of course, came the rain of fire and blood we'd been warned about.

JeffreyWKramer

12-02-2005, 08:50 AM

Then, of course, came the rain of fire and blood we'd been warned about.

Well, no. But perhaps the Wrath of God came about in the form of the continued stardom of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, and the horrid CATWOMAN movie.

Mysterious ways, all that. And proof that God is more a bastard than Superman and Batman combined.

EdContradictory

12-02-2005, 08:57 AM

And proof that God is more a bastard than Superman and Batman combined.

"What, are you DENSE? Are you RETARDED or something? Who the hell do you THINK I am? I'm goddamn GOD."

west3man

12-02-2005, 09:05 AM

"What, are you DENSE? Are you RETARDED or something? Who the hell do you THINK I am? I'm goddamn GOD."
I JUST told my girlfriend about that quote, this morning. She was floored.

Mmmmm... *bites tongue*

Adam Crocker

12-02-2005, 09:06 AM

Right, arguments I've held onto for several days that I never got around to posting, but for some reason still burn in my hands. Here it goes...

My point was that if everyone was slavish in the law to their own view of marriage, everyone would end up dissappointed.

Again, what does that have to do with making sure it is applied consistently and fairly?

For an society that prizes the individual so much, why suddenly get into the whole "long recognized and widely accepted institution" issue.

What does that mean? Beause North American society is predisposed towards individualism it involves ignoring the institutions that historically make it up? This is how marriage has been treated in society. And by happenstance legal rights have been attached to it, some of which ensure the stability of the marriage and family, like citizenship, visitation rights, custody rights, etc. etc.

Why even have such a ridiculous debate given all the history over marriage? Why even bother, if its only going to be insulting to one-half of the people either way you go? Why force one set of values down the throat of another?

First off, why is the debate ridiculous? Secondly, who's forcing values down other people's throats by legalizing gay marriage? This question has been asked again and again whenever someone makes the claim and I have yet to see an actual response to it beyond disagreeing with gay marriage.

I want the entire conotation of marriage via the government gone. The government does not exist to validate a lifestyle, gay or straight.

Where have advocates for gay marriage called for validation of a lifestyle? They've called for equality under the law.

I've said before, months ago, on this thread that the government has only two options: either everyone gets access to marriage or no one gets access to marriage.

And by what do you mean that everyone gets access to marriage?

The Puritan/Protestant founders opened themselves up to all of this when they themselves messed with marriage and "divorce".

[...]

Whats happening now is just one more consequence of the Reformation, like it or not.

Yes it is, and you're point?

Court decisions make things legal, not true. It completely flies in the face of states rights, the intent of the Constitution and the concept of natural law. You don't need to be Catholic or anything else to have that conviction. I don't see how people can just pull new rights out of thin air because their emotions demand so (despite however genuine and sincere and well intentioned).

You mean like they did for black slaves or women?

They don't want to talk about it in spiritual terms because it suddenly becomes muddy, and all they have to rely on are "feelings". We'll just "feel" our way through it all...and further away from that Poo-Bah.

Many of the people here regard this as a civil rights issue. As such religious meanings don't come into play much as they are talking about fairness and equality under the law, not what it means according to a spiritual system or diety that may or may not guide the universe. Moreover, many of us aren't religious, such as myself. I've had no real religious inclinations in my life, so I can't talk about spirituality the way you might.

Prolly have more later, but nothing to ad to the Login debate, because everyone has said it.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 07:34 PM

Again, what does that have to do with making sure it is applied consistently and fairly?

Nothing. My point is in addressing how various groups of people with their own ideas on what the law should be put that into action. Everyone approaches it differently, yet many are unwilling to budge. Some believe you must meet criteria to have access to marriage, others believe that criteria should be left completely open. If you act in favor of one or the other, someone will end up being dissappointed.

This has zero to do with application of the law, merely an observation on the effect law has on people. You know, zeitgeist and all that.

What does that mean? Beause North American society is predisposed towards individualism it involves ignoring the institutions that historically make it up? This is how marriage has been treated in society. And by happenstance legal rights have been attached to it, some of which ensure the stability of the marriage and family, like citizenship, visitation rights, custody rights, etc. etc.

I find the argument that some in the more liberal camp make here regarding marriage as an "prized institution" a highjacking of the argument most conservatives make, and somewhat hypocritical. For a set of values that supposedly prizes an individual's "rights" and choices over that of the collective many just seems contradictory to me. Suddenly everyone thinks marriage is the bees knees, as long as you agree with their definition of it, "liberal" or "conservative". Again, just an observation and opinion— not being argumentative here.

First off, why is the debate ridiculous? Secondly, who's forcing values down other people's throats by legalizing gay marriage? This question has been asked again and again whenever someone makes the claim and I have yet to see an actual response to it beyond disagreeing with gay marriage.

The debate is ridiculous because this is essentially a debate surrounding individual life choices...as if thats something that could actually be regulated or somehow steered.

Uh, yeah— values in either camp are being forced down the throats of others. The law as it currently stands for the most part reflects a Protestant view on marriage/divorce. Is that not taking one groups definition and applying it to all via the law? Conversely, let's say we allow gay marriage to occur in society— would we then not be taking more libertine values, gay cultural values and applying them on all?

When the law allows and/or disallows something it implies approval/disapproval of that activity. By allowing gay marriage we are all saying "Yes, this is an okay thing.", just like currently we say "Marriage and divorce between straight people is an okay thing".

Yes, I'm aware one could make the argument that the law does not imply that approval for one definition over another. One could easily say "No, the law is merely being applied equally to all citizens"— but I'd believe that to be a naive thought. Laws reflect the values and principles of the society we live in, whether implied or explicitly stated. Laws that allowed for things like prohibition or slavery definitely make statements about our society and the kind of issues we grappled with as a citizenry.

Where have advocates for gay marriage called for validation of a lifestyle? They've called for equality under the law.

Some have called for equality under the law, I get the sense that others want more than that.

When people make emotional pleas, talk about things like their personal desire to publicly display and pronouncing their "union" and attack the values of those that disagree with them and their lifestyle— that says to me that what is really being sought is validation; whats really under the surface is a fight over sexual ethics.

I don't think it could be denied that SOME see same-sex marriage as one piece in a broader effort to convince society that a gay lifestyle is something that we all should be comfortable with. Many will reply saying they merely care about the law and thats it, to heck with what society at large believes...others are making real attempts to change hearts and minds.

And by what do you mean that everyone gets access to marriage?

I thought I was being clear here. I'm not sure I understand what your question is.

If you ask me, over the last couple of hundred years, I'd say starting with the Reformation and continued in the "Enlightenment" and the revolutionary period, certain ideas and concepts have creeped up that have gotten us where we are today on the matter of gay marriage.

Certain groups today, who introduced ideas like individualism, liberty and rebellion against authority— are ironically not the ones that would support gay marriage today. It's they who opened the door for an issue like this, and I think they ought to at least be consistent to their principles. If we hold that government services must be equally distributed amongst all citizens, their are only two choices: either everyone gets access to "marriage", or nobody does.

I'm really not sure how I can be more concise than that.

Yes it is, and you're point?

See above.

You mean like they did for black slaves or women?

What are you asking here? Whose "they"? What point are you trying to make?

Many of the people here regard this as a civil rights issue. As such religious meanings don't come into play much as they are talking about fairness and equality under the law, not what it means according to a spiritual system or diety that may or may not guide the universe. Moreover, many of us aren't religious, such as myself. I've had no real religious inclinations in my life, so I can't talk about spirituality the way you might.

My point isn't about opressing my own religiosity upon others. I don't see a lot of Catholics attempting to place mass attendence into the law, or force feed sacrements on people.

Let me at least make a crappy attempt to explain my own mindset on a matter like this... There are certain spheres I'd say spread beyond the religious and the dogmatic. They pertain to ideas and broader concepts on human dignity, human rights, natural law, etc.

Its how you could end up with Catholic positions that spread our own American political spectrum (ie, being anti-abortion and anti-death penalty at the same time).

I'd like to see the law reflect and be harmonious with nature and natural law, rather than contradict it. I want to see human rights in concert with reality, not making up reality. To me, gay marriage inherently flies against the clear and apparent intent nature has for both sex and love. The same applies to the sexual activities of straight people. I think thats an issue broad enough that I can put aside the specific principles of Catholicism and still be able to chime in on my opinions regarding the application of law to all peoples.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 07:46 PM

I'm reminded of one of the wisest lines I've ever seen in a movie, at the end of PLEASANTVILLE. The hero's mom complains of her life "It's not supposed to be like this!" and he replies "It's not supposed to be like anything." That's right, to my mind. Life is whatever you make of it

Except some would argue "Wait a minute... it is suppose to be like something." That's much more true if you ask me. To me, it makes no sense to just sort of throw your hands up in the air and say "well, whatever you, I or everyone wants is a-okay."

What if gay marriage is actually a way for us to "get back to God"? What if it's all just a test?

Well I'd guess I'd have to say: prove it, or at least make a rational argument for it. I've yet to see someone make a truly good, solid and rational theological justification for pre-marital sex, contracetption, abortion, etc.

It sounds to me like just questioning for the sake of it. I'm not sure what your trying to get at.

Maybe if you asked Gail to ban you, or set up your browser to block this site.

After a year and half of posting on and of— I think I've garnered only one respones from Gail... and it was "YIKES." I guess if I wanted to really say someting insulting I could... but thats like trying to get the cops to kill you as opposed to just killing yourself or something...

I get it. By truth and reality, you mean your religious and spiritual beliefs. I'm glad you spelled that out explicitly.

Gilda

No. I mean truth and reality. Truth and reality I don't believe to be subjective. Again, speaking broadly one doesn't need the specifics of a religion to say that.

Believing in priestly celibacy is clearly a matter of subjective opinion. How many times Catholics ought to stand and kneel at mass is a subjective opinon. Or secularly, how many years one should go to jail for stealing is subjective. Its open ended and sort of left to opinions and authorities.

On the other hand, someone trying to convince me rationally that an act of gay sex is as...er "fruitful" as straight sex is going to have a difficult time doing so. If someone could irrefultably do that...I'd have no beef with gay marriage.

Jeff Brady

12-03-2005, 08:29 PM

Well I'd guess I'd have to say: prove it, or at least make a rational argument for it. I've yet to see someone make a truly good, solid and rational theological justification for pre-marital sex, contracetption, abortion, etc.

It sounds to me like just questioning for the sake of it. I'm not sure what your trying to get at.

I am just questioning for the sake of it, because you can't prove that God even exists, as much as I can't prove he doesn't. I live life as if he doesn't. I live life for me, not how other people or possible supreme beings think I ought to.

west3man

12-03-2005, 08:44 PM

Except some would argue "Wait a minute... it is suppose to be like something." That's much more true if you ask me. To me, it makes no sense to just sort of throw your hands up in the air and say "well, whatever you, I or everyone wants is a-okay."

Well I'd guess I'd have to say: prove it, or at least make a rational argument for it. I've yet to see someone make a truly good, solid and rational theological justification for pre-marital sex, contracetption, abortion, etc.

It sounds to me like just questioning for the sake of it. I'm not sure what your trying to get at.

After a year and half of posting on and of— I think I've garnered only one respones from Gail... and it was "YIKES." I guess if I wanted to really say someting insulting I could... but thats like trying to get the cops to kill you as opposed to just killing yourself or something...

No. I mean truth and reality. Truth and reality I don't believe to be subjective. Again, speaking broadly one doesn't need the specifics of a religion to say that.

Believing in priestly celibacy is clearly a matter of subjective opinion. How many times Catholics ought to stand and kneel at mass is a subjective opinon. Or secularly, how many years one should go to jail for stealing is subjective. Its open ended and sort of left to opinions and authorities.

On the other hand, someone trying to convince me rationally that an act of gay sex is as...er "fruitful" as straight sex is going to have a difficult time doing so. If someone could irrefultably do that...I'd have no beef with gay marriage.
How...er "fruitful" is straight sex when the couple cannot conceive? If the answer is "less fruitful" than straight sex with the possibility of conception, then I must ask if you have beef with those types of straight marriages.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 09:06 PM

I am just questioning for the sake of it, because you can't prove that God even exists, as much as I can't prove he doesn't. I live life as if he doesn't. I live life for me, not how other people or possible supreme beings think I ought to.

But what does that have to do with law? I'd agree: No God, no reason to have this debate.

What I'm looking for is consistency in law, which has zero to do with my beliefs on homosexuality— hence my all or nothing stance.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 09:14 PM

How...er "fruitful" is straight sex when the couple cannot conceive? If the answer is "less fruitful" than straight sex with the possibility of conception, then I must ask if you have beef with those types of straight marriages.

I would. But that's speaking as a Catholic, not as a citizen. I think its easy for people to justify a morally positive view of gay marriage by virtue of the fact that straight marriage isn't carried out consistantly accross the board. Lots of lay people either don't understand it, or are done a disservice by not being properly prepared and educated.

If a couple could not conceive or stated they did not want to have children, I would really question the wisdom and rationale of marrying under the auspices of Catholicism.

Clearly secular law does not care, and is therefore inconsistent in my mind. Secular marriage is about a lot of things, but bearing children is by no means a prereq.

If a Catholic couple came to me and said "We're getting married, but we never want to have children." I'd say...so what's the point?

If a non-Catholic couple came to me and said "We're getting "married", and we don't want to have children." I'd say...er...good luck with that.

Jeff Brady

12-03-2005, 09:23 PM

If a Catholic couple came to me and said "We're getting married, but we never want to have children." I'd say...so what's the point?

The point is they're in love and want to celebrate it with God, and want to have sexual relations without sinning.

Noah Johnson

12-03-2005, 09:29 PM

If a Catholic couple came to me and said "We're getting married, but we never want to have children." I'd say...so what's the point?

If a non-Catholic couple came to me and said "We're getting "married", and we don't want to have children." I'd say...er...good luck with that.
I can only assume that your (technically incorrect) use of quotation marks means that you think that marriage can only exist with the blessing of your particular church.

This attitude, if it is yours, is too contemptible for words. You ought to be ashamed to call yourself a human being, much less an American, if that's what you think.

Cam63

12-03-2005, 09:34 PM

Anthony has a fucked attitude re marriage and gays, but he doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel as constantly as Spackling Compound.

Adam Crocker

12-03-2005, 09:39 PM

This attitude, if it is yours, is too contemptible for words. You ought to be ashamed to call yourself a human being, much less an American, if that's what you think.

Anthony has a fucked attitude re marriage and gays, but he doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel as constantly as Spackling Compound.

I disagree with anthony! greatly on this issue, but could we please keep the condescenion and outright villification to a minimum please, if not at all?

anthony!

12-03-2005, 09:44 PM

The point is they're in love and want to celebrate it with God, and want to have sexual relations without sinning.

Which is the reason everyone gives.

I'd say that's not enough. To believe in God and believe in being "fruitful and multiplying" and then not do it is totally denying the whole point of our sexuality. Sex is a good thing. Sex is clearly enjoyable. But sex clearly has a purpose that is inherently tied to procreation. Marriage also happens to be about two people coming together for the purpose of aiding the other in their salvation— and that has everything to do with love, and nothing to do with sex.

I'm also going to presume that this couple is going to be using contraception in their effort to not have kids, which is another sin altogether.

To say "I'm in love and now I want to have sex" isn't enough. At least if we are going to carry it out properly. Marriage is more than the "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...now we get to have sex!" stage of life. I'd be pretty disappointed in any priest that would dispense the sacrement to that couple.

This is a high threshold. A very high one. If I were master of the universe, marriage would be a much rarer thing and we'd all remember that chastity is indeed a virtue. Let's be honest— even a ton of lay Catholics wouldn't agree with me. I'd really say only about 10% (just guessing) are serious about adhering to this. Whatever the number is, its clearly a minority.

But again, this is Catholicism we're talking about...not the law.

Jeff Brady

12-03-2005, 09:50 PM

What if they physically weren't capable of having children? What if one or both were barren?

Cam63

12-03-2005, 09:50 PM

I disagree with anthony! greatly on this issue, but could we please keep the condescenion and outright villification to a minimum please, if not at all?

I was kinda sticking up for Anthony.

I don't agree with his principles re love and what constitutes a happy marriage, but he's not as bad as some.

Cam63

12-03-2005, 09:51 PM

What if they physically weren't capable of having children? What if one or both were barren?

No children unless they plan to adopt, I guess.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 09:52 PM

I can only assume that your (technically incorrect) use of quotation marks means that you think that marriage can only exist with the blessing of your particular church.

This attitude, if it is yours, is too contemptible for words. You ought to be ashamed to call yourself a human being, much less an American, if that's what you think.

The thread that never ceases to amaze.

I'm not sure what's so contemptible.

Tell me, whats the point of getting married under Catholicism, if you're not going follow it's meaning and purpose? Again, are we just looking for validation of our feelings and actions? Sorry, thats not what religion is for.

All I'm saying is that if you're Catholic it stands to reason that you'd want to be consistent with the truth of the values and concepts you're living by. Why be Catholic otherwise? Tradition? Accident of birth? Because Mom wants you to?

As far as non-Catholics....I'd think I have a very American attitude. "Good luck with that".

Cam63

12-03-2005, 09:58 PM

I've seen so much of the " live and let live " side of some folks, I've developed a healthy distrust.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 10:04 PM

What if they physically weren't capable of having children? What if one or both were barren?

This question comes up a lot here and I confess I never really properly research it. Believe it or not, I don't spend a lot of time thinking about doctrinal issues pertaining to marriage.

I could be incorrect, but I would imagine a couple of things:

1.) Is there still a possibility of having children? If having kids is something that is just going to be difficult, and can be helped out— I don't think there would be an issue there.

2.) If there was absolutely no chance, 0% chance of ever having kids— I could see it becoming an issue. This is presuming they are at a child-bearing age.

3.) I have no clue what would happen if they said "we want to marry, can't have kids, but have every intention of adopting" I'd imagine it would be allowed then, but that's just my gut.

4.) In the case of the elderly— it could easily be rationalized that they have kids from previous marriages and therefore meet that sort of standard. It would be a fully formed family at that point. I have no clue what you'd do with two elderly people, both having no children and no chance of ever having children. I'm not even sure how often that situation occurs specifically in the Catholic Church.

west3man

12-03-2005, 10:07 PM

I was kinda sticking up for Anthony.

I don't agree with his principles re love and what constitutes a happy marriage, but he's not as bad as some.
All due respect,... you could do that without calling out any particular poster.

Gilda Dent

12-03-2005, 10:07 PM

Uh, yeah— values in either camp are being forced down the throats of others.

Utter nonsense. Changing the laws to allow any couple to get married allows conservatives and those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman to live their lives according to those beliefs. It requires no change in behavior or lifestyle on the part of anyone.

The law as it currently stands for the most part reflects a Protestant view on marriage/divorce. Is that not taking one groups definition and applying it to all via the law?

Not exactly. Many of the beneftis that come with marriage are purely secular.

Conversely, let's say we allow gay marriage to occur in society— would we then not be taking more libertine values, gay cultural values and applying them on all?

Nope. Allow gays to marry wouldn't require anyone to alter any of their values or require anyone to change their behavior. The difference is that everyone would be allowed to live according to their own values, rather than everyone having to live according to one group's values.

When the law allows and/or disallows something it implies approval/disapproval of that activity. By allowing gay marriage we are all saying "Yes, this is an okay thing.", just like currently we say "Marriage and divorce between straight people is an okay thing".

Nope, it doesn't work in the inverse like that. When we disallow some activity by making it illegal, that is explicit disapproval of the activity.

Allowing a behavior doesn't imply approval. It could mean that, or it could mean being neutral towards an activity, or it could meant that the authority in question disapproves but to the degree that restricting the behavior is not necessary. Allowing something implies no stance on it.

Yes, I'm aware one could make the argument that the law does not imply that approval for one definition over another. One could easily say "No, the law is merely being applied equally to all citizens"— but I'd believe that to be a naive thought. Laws reflect the values and principles of the society we live in, whether implied or explicitly stated. Laws that allowed for things like prohibition or slavery definitely make statements about our society and the kind of issues we grappled with as a citizenry.

Doublespeak. Prohibition and slavery laws didn't "allow" for those things, they provided for them through the restriction of individual freedoms. If anything, what you speak of is closer to a ban on gay marriage than it is to allowing it.

Some have called for equality under the law, I get the sense that others want more than that.

Yes, equality under the law. Treat all people the same. You don't think that's a good thing?

When people make emotional pleas, talk about things like their personal desire to publicly display and pronouncing their "union" and attack the values of those that disagree with them and their lifestyle— that says to me that what is really being sought is validation; whats really under the surface is a fight over sexual ethics.

I'm one of those who's been using personal examples, including my marriage. Sure, I'd like to be free to express my love for my wife in any way and at any time that would be appropriate for a heterosexual. I have not once attacked your values or the values of anyone who disagrees with me. I've not attacked anyone's values. Show me a single instance where I've done so. I've said consistently that I believe that you, and I, and every other person should be free to live their lives according to their own values when it comes to choosing a partner for marriage (so long as both are consenting adults).

Show me how allowing me to marry requires a change in anyone else's values, behavior, or lifestyle. You can't, because it doesn't and it won't.

I don't think it could be denied that SOME see same-sex marriage as one piece in a broader effort to convince society that a gay lifestyle is something that we all should be comfortable with.

Again, the "gay lifestyle" thing. What exactly do you mean by a "gay lifestyle"? The vast majority of my lifestyle is no different from that most straight people.

Tell me what the gay lifestyle is, because I'd really like to know whether I'm living it. What is it that I, as a homosexual woman, can do as a part of my relationship that a straight man could not.

If we hold that government services must be equally distributed amongst all citizens, their are only two choices: either everyone gets access to "marriage", or nobody does.

Marriage isn't a service, but otherwise, yeah. Government recognized marriage isn't going anywhere, so the only real alternative is to grant the privilege to all regardless of sex.

My point isn't about opressing my own religiosity upon others. I don't see a lot of Catholics attempting to place mass attendence into the law, or force feed sacrements on people.

No, but you do seem to want to enforce Catholic doctrine as it relates to marriage on others.

I want to see human rights in concert with reality, not making up reality.

Me too. The reality of the situation is that homosexuals do fall in love, have sex, form domestic partnerships, have childrens and form families. Let's have the laws reflect that reality.

Gilda

Gilda Dent

12-03-2005, 10:12 PM

If a non-Catholic couple came to me and said "We're getting "married", and we don't want to have children." I'd say...er...good luck with that.

So why not apply the same principal to gay marriage? Wish us luck and get out of the way.

Gilda

west3man

12-03-2005, 10:18 PM

So why not apply the same principal to gay marriage? Wish us luck and get out of the way.

Gilda
Mighty good question.

Rosie

12-03-2005, 10:20 PM

So why not apply the same principal to gay marriage? Wish us luck and get out of the way.

Gilda

Because as long as you can bullshit it off as something else, extreme bigotry is perfectly acceptable in our modern society, and forcing it on others encouraged.

west3man

12-03-2005, 10:21 PM

Because as long as you can bullshit it off as something else, extreme bigotry is perfectly acceptable in our modern society, and forcing it on others encouraged.
...or some people arrive at certain conclusions at different times than other people.

Sometimes it's not bullshit. Sometimes it's just a delayed epiphany.

Granted, I dunno *which* this one actually is.

Jeff Brady

12-03-2005, 10:23 PM

Again, the "gay lifestyle" thing. What exactly do you mean by a "gay lifestyle"? The vast majority of my lifestyle is no different from that most straight people.

George Carlin reminds us how dumb the word "lifestyle" is:
Atilla the Hun had an active, outdoorsy lifestyle.

Gilda Dent

12-03-2005, 10:36 PM

Ok, I can't resist.

Homosexual lifestyle: I really have no idea what this means. I look at what I do on a daily basis, and I truly cannot think of a single thing that I do that isn't engaged in as a part of my life and marriage that isn't also engaged in by straight people. Not one.

Gilda

anthony!

12-03-2005, 10:43 PM

Utter nonsense. Changing the laws to allow any couple to get married allows conservatives and those who believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman to live their lives according to those beliefs. It requires no change in behavior or lifestyle on the part of anyone.

An individualitst attitude. One could easily take the view that allowing it counts as affirmation, regardless of you thinking that is so.

Not exactly. Many of the beneftis that come with marriage are purely secular.

Which only reinforces the idea that those benefits could be adjusted in places where necessary without touching marriage.

Nope. Allow gays to marry wouldn't require anyone to alter any of their values or require anyone to change their behavior. The difference is that everyone would be allowed to live according to their own values, rather than everyone having to live according to one group's values.

Try asking the other side that. I give the same answer as above.

Allowing a behavior doesn't imply approval. It could mean that, or it could mean being neutral towards an activity, or it could meant that the authority in question disapproves but to the degree that restricting the behavior is necessary. Allowing something implies no stance on it.

Again...I sort of addressed this by conceding that one could easily take that view. Depends on how you see the law and its relationship to society/culture. Some people will view these things as affirmatives. Not saying I will.

Yes, equality under the law. Treat all people the same. You don't think that's a good thing?

The same as it pertains to reality. Sure.

I'm one of those who's been using personal examples, including my marriage. Sure, I'd like to be free to express my love for my wife in any way and at any time that would be appropriate for a heterosexual. I have not once attacked your values or the values of anyone who disagrees with me. I've not attacked anyone's values. Show me a single instance where I've done so. I've said consistently that I believe that you, and I, and every other person should be free to live their lives according to their own values when it comes to choosing a partner for marriage (so long as both are consenting adults).

Show me how allowing me to marry requires a change in anyone else's values, behavior, or lifestyle. You can't, because it doesn't and it won't.

You're making the assumption that I was referring to you. I don't know you, so I have no way of really knowing what you personally are seeking aside form what you write. I think its completely reasonable and safe to assume that there are SOME gay people who'd like to see the world change on the issue of homosexuality, just like there are Catholics who'd like to see the whole world become Catholic.

I don't feel you've attacked my values. You've stated indifference to them from what I gather. Maybe a hint of disdain. Heck, with you I get off easy. And by "get off" I mean that non-sexually.

Ah, I slay me.

Again, the "gay lifestyle" thing. What exactly do you mean by a "gay lifestyle"? The vast majority of my lifestyle is no different from that most straight people.

Tell me what the gay lifestyle is, because I'd really like to know whether I'm living it. What is it that I, as a homosexual woman, can do as a part of my relationship that a straight man could not.

I think you're just bothered by the semantics here.

By virtue of fact that you're in a relationship with another woman means you have a gay lifestyle. You've made a decision in life that carries with it certain convictions and beliefs in regards to sexual ethics. To me, thats all it means. If you see something more in that...well I don't really know what to say.

Although I have to say...you can't get your partner pregnant.

Marriage isn't a service, but otherwise, yeah. Government recognized marriage isn't going anywhere, so the only real alternative is to grant the privilege to all regardless of sex.

Sue me, but don't you get a license dispensed by the government, or perhaps get a judge to do something? I'm not married, so I don't know. Seems like a service to me.

No, but you do seem to want to enforce Catholic doctrine as it relates to marriage on others.

If only.

Me too. The reality of the situation is that homosexuals do fall in love, have sex, form domestic partnerships, have childrens and form families. Let's have the laws reflect that reality.

The reality is that homosexuals fall in love, have sex, form domestic partnerships and then have to use extranneous means to form families either with the aid of donors, third parties or adoption. To me, thats bending means so you can get the end you want.

Everything works...and then that procreation matter just keeps getting in the way, and there really isn't anything anyone can do about it.

But its all beside the point. Precedents dictate that gay marriage eventually is going to have to happen. I don't really know why I have to keep repeating that opinion I have, which incidently is entirely separate from my Catholicism. Let's not forget that.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 10:44 PM

So why not apply the same principal to gay marriage? Wish us luck and get out of the way.

Gilda

Never said I wouldn't.

west3man

12-03-2005, 10:48 PM

Never said I wouldn't.
Turns out the epiphany was ours to experience.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 10:51 PM

Turns out the epiphany was ours to experience.

Sorry...that totally flew over my head.

Jeff Brady

12-03-2005, 10:53 PM

Sorry...that totally flew over my head.

West was paying you a compliment. Take it!

west3man

12-03-2005, 10:56 PM

West was paying you a compliment. Take it!
He'd better.

THIS COMPLIMENT WILL EXPLODE IN 15 SECONDS.

*boom*

Shit.

anthony!

12-03-2005, 10:57 PM

West was paying you a compliment. Take it!

Oh. Ha.

If its such an epiphany that I'd do that...what kind of Catholic do you think I am? Shit, what kind of people do you think Catholics are?

I mean for real, people. I haven't burned any heathens at the stake in years.

west3man

12-04-2005, 05:58 AM

Oh. Ha.

If its such an epiphany that I'd do that...what kind of Catholic do you think I am? Shit, what kind of people do you think Catholics are?

I mean for real, people. I haven't burned any heathens at the stake in years.
There's burning at the stake... and then there's denying someone the ability/right to marry. You seemed to be implying that you wouldn't stand in their way, although you've spent quite a bit of time explaining why someone would or should. You didn't speak in vague terms or way "well, they probably think." You spoke in absolutes (i.e. "reality" and "the truth") as if certain things weren't subjective - things that many of us think ARE subjective.

If all of that meant something other than what we thought, that's great, imo. Now that I think about your phrasing, though, and the fact that you didn't say you WOULDN'T stand in their way (not explicitly*) I'm not sure what meant what.

* - you just said that you never said you would

anthony!

12-04-2005, 07:58 AM

There's burning at the stake... and then there's denying someone the ability/right to marry. You seemed to be implying that you wouldn't stand in their way, although you've spent quite a bit of time explaining why someone would or should. You didn't speak in vague terms or way "well, they probably think." You spoke in absolutes (i.e. "reality" and "the truth") as if certain things weren't subjective - things that many of us think ARE subjective.

If all of that meant something other than what we thought, that's great, imo. Now that I think about your phrasing, though, and the fact that you didn't say you WOULDN'T stand in their way (not explicitly*) I'm not sure what meant what.

* - you just said that you never said you would

Hey I think pre-marital sex is totally wrong, but I've never advocated criminalizing it or somehow tried to prevent someone from making their own choices. If there's one truth about freedom in this country: you do have a right to make the wrong choices in life, as hard as it is to say.

But, I think that as a Catholic I've sort of got a job to say what I think. Why let a friend do something you think is wrong? There's a lot of things that the law allows for I think are really wrong and severely damaging to our society: abortion, the death penalty, matters of social justice, divorce and yeah...maybe one day marriage— and I'd be remiss if I didn't say something, anything.

Let's be explicitly clear on a few things:

1.)If the courts instated gay marriage I'd think "I disagree, but we all had it coming. I can't deny it is now legal, nor could I deny it's equal application to all peoples under our current view of the law".

2.)If the matter of gay marriage came before me in the form of a vote, I'd vote against it. I don't believe I really even have a choice in that matter. If it ever comes to a vote, I've got a right to vote my opinion— no, a RESPONSIBILITY to. It'd be like voting on whether or not a rock is a rock: some want to define the rock as a rock, others want to say the rock is a tree.

3.)Now is the time to argue the matter. I'm confident at some point the debate will eventually come to an end, and gay marriage will become legal. I expect to lose, but I feel I've still gotta call it what it is: hence my talk about truth and natural law (Yes, I believe that natural law— like human rights— is something that exists regardless of people or nations acknowledging it.)

There's a point we're you have to say "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's" and move on, hoping that some will eventually come around.

west3man

12-04-2005, 08:14 AM

anthony!

12-04-2005, 03:09 PM

I think that contradicts your earlier statement... or the implication that you wouldn't stand in the way of gay marriage. Clearly, you would and by arguing against it, clearly you are.

Sorry if this is repetitve, but, wouldyou support civil unions for same-sex couples? If the answer's "no," then you're not as tolerant or interested in fairness and positivity as you'd have us believe... or as you may believe.

Not sure it contradicts anything. All the above does is tell you that my actions would shift depending on the context. My attitude overall would remain pretty consistent.

I wouldn't stand in the way of gay marriage if it became legal by vote. I wouldn't stand in the way of gay marriage if the courts or the congress correct and made their stance on marriage consistent. Like I said: there is only two real options here.

I would argue against gay marriage if we were having a philosophical and theological debate on sexual ethics.

I would vote against gay marriage if it came to a vote...because, no shit— its not something I believe in and contrary to my view of the way the world works. I'm not going to apologize for hypothetically voting my conscience, nor am I going to waste time second guessing my beliefs against abstract and vaguely defined notions of what constitutes tolerance. It's not intolerant to say through your vote "I believe marriage is X, Y and Z" if asked. If I don't believe gays should be allowed to marry, why should I double-cross my beliefs, risk my soul and support it through a vote? My vote is mine to give and to be blunt really isn't the property of anyone else, or their values for that matter. This is why I agree with something that Spack has often repeated— gay marriage should never ever come to a vote. Its a mistake to do so and a mistake to expect people to see freedom and liberty in the same way some of you clearly do. This nation allows me to vote to my opinions and convictions. End of story.

Civil unions in my mind are a non-issue. I don't see the difference between that and a marriage, except it isn't called a "marriage". It's a wishy-washy compromise to me— unless someone can make a compelling argument in favor of it. It's like saying: straight people have marriage, gay people have civil unions... isn't that sort of like saying "separate but equal?" Either we all get the same deal or no one does. I don't think it properly ends the debate to end up somewhere in the middle. Let's make a decision, make the law consistent, fair and be done with it.

Thinking out loud though: I suppose if you allow gay people to have civil unions, and sort of "downgraded" straight marriages to civil unions...that would be one way around it all.

Something tells me this isn't going to reach your threshold for what counts as "tolerance". If not, then I would ask you this: at what point do convictions begin and end? At what point does tolerance end and agreeing begin?

Adam Crocker

12-04-2005, 03:39 PM

Looked at this sucker in Word Pad and Broke it down into three parts because it was so long. Here's part one.

Nothing. My point is in addressing how various groups of people with their own ideas on what the law should be put that into action. Everyone approaches it differently, yet many are unwilling to budge. Some believe you must meet criteria to have access to marriage, others believe that criteria should be left completely open. If you act in favor of one or the other, someone will end up being dissappointed.

So basically it's irrelevant?

I find the argument that some in the more liberal camp make here regarding marriage as an "prized institution" a highjacking of the argument most conservatives make, and somewhat hypocritical. For a set of values that supposedly prizes an individual's "rights" and choices over that of the collective many just seems contradictory to me. Suddenly everyone thinks marriage is the bees knees, as long as you agree with their definition of it, "liberal" or "conservative". Again, just an observation and opinion— not being argumentative here.

It would make sense were you taking liberalism and conservativism in their old late 18th and 19th definitions, but it doesn't work when applied to their modern uses in North America since both set of values foundations are in the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment with elements of social conservativism (modern conservativism = socially conservative to a degree; economically liberal) or socialism mixed in (social liberalism = market economy whose inequities are moderated by government intervention; socially liberal). Moreover, social democracy -- socialism meets parliamentary democracy, resulting in market economy modified by government intervention. Leftwing anarchism, similarly plays a balancing act between individualism and collectivism, namely looking at how individual freedom is protected collective political action against predatory political and economic power.

Point being, your observation is arguing a false dichotomy here by claiming there must necessarily be a strict separation between collectivist and individual political tendencies in this argument, when very often you find people whose political values will share a mix of such ideas.

Nor do I find your observation to really be an accurate summation of the arguments in the gay marraige debate. None of its proponents have actually questioned the value and importance of marriage as institution, nor have I ever seen them do so. They are not hi-jacking the arguments made by conservatives opponents of gay marriage. (Moreover, what about conservative proponents of gay marriage?) The difference between proponent and opponents' arguments on the matter of marriage as an institution comes down to whether gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage or not.

(And if it means anything I have found the arguments that it will harm marriage to be grasping bullshit.)

wyze2099

12-04-2005, 03:53 PM

I've never had a problem with gays, and I've never found the arguments against them or against gay marriage to be convincing. If it's supposed to be a threat to the concept of a family because the couples can't reproduce, how about hetero couples who adopt rather than procreate, or who never bother to have children at all (either by choice or by natural inability)? Divorce damages families much worse than the existence of a gay couple ever could. And I see absolutely no reason why gays shouldn't be able to serve in the military if they want to -- they have to practice the same self-control their fellow soldiers do, and it makes no sense to turn away applicants in a military shortage based on sexual preference/identity alone. That has nothing to do with combat ability in the first place.

I'm a heterosexual male, but I'm never seen homosexuals as any kind of a threat at all. Hell, two out of three of my former girlfriends were bisexual, a segment of the population that is rarely mentioned in these debates. I asked one ex what she thought of this, and she pointed out that marriage bans are imposing limits on who she can and can't marry based on gender ("plumbing" in her words), which she doesn't even take into account when choosing a significant other. She cares about the person, not the plumbing, and it's annoying that she could marry some people she likes, but not all of them, and for a reason that has very little to do with how she even approaches relationships.

More on this when I get the chance...

anthony!

12-04-2005, 03:56 PM

So basically it's irrelevant?

If you think my observation is irrelevent, sure I guess. I think I stated above that I had no grand, sweeping point to make there. I'm not sure what your point is here other than being argumentative. I gave an opinion based on something I observed. Oh well.

It would make sense were you taking liberalism and conservativism in their old late 18th and 19th definitions, but it doesn't work when applied to their modern uses in North America since both set of values foundations are in the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment with elements of social conservativism (modern conservativism = socially conservative to a degree; economically liberal) or socialism mixed in (social liberalism = market economy whose inequities are moderated by government intervention; socially liberal). Moreover, social democracy -- socialism meets parliamentary democracy, resulting in market economy modified by government intervention. Leftwing anarchism, similarly plays a balancing act between individualism and collectivism, namely looking at how individual freedom is protected collective political action against predatory political and economic power.

Point being, your observation is arguing a false dichotomy here by claiming there must necessarily be a strict separation between collectivist and individual political tendencies in this argument, when very often you find people whose political values will share a mix of such ideas.

Nor do I find your observation to really be an accurate summation of the arguments in the gay marraige debate. None of its proponents have actually questioned the value and importance of marriage as institution, nor have I ever seen them do so. They are not hi-jacking the arguments made by conservatives opponents of gay marriage. (Moreover, what about conservative proponents of gay marriage?) The difference between proponent and opponents' arguments on the matter of marriage as an institution comes down to whether gay marriage will harm the institution of marriage or not.

(And if it means anything I have found the arguments that it will harm marriage to be grasping bullshit.)

I don't think I've said it would harm Judeo-Christian marriage. I have said that I believe it would make it harder for the faiths to convince generation after generation of our beliefs...but thats an unrelated matter.

Again...I find it ironic that everyone is in love with marriage all of a sudden. That's really all I had to say. If you think I'm incorrect— fine. I'm not going to spend time arguing over a point irrelevent to the broader issue of gay marriage. For what its worth, I think you make a good argument contrary to my opinion.

Adam Crocker

12-04-2005, 04:17 PM

I don't think I've said it would harm Judeo-Christian marriage. I have said that I believe it would make it harder for the faiths to convince generation after generation of our beliefs...but thats an unrelated matter.

Sorry. My statement wasn't mean to refer to your own arguments so much as laying out the broad field of the debate after saying that I felt you had misunderstood it.

Again...I find it ironic that everyone is in love with marriage all of a sudden. That's really all I had to say. If you think I'm incorrect— fine. I'm not going to spend time arguing over a point irrelevent to the broader issue of gay marriage. For what its worth, I think you make a good argument contrary to my opinion.

Thanks. For what it's worth your arguments also require me to post this stuff into wordpad first because I have to leave and think about it for awhile.

Personally I'm not seeing if anyone has suddenly fallen in love with marriage all of the sudden because of this debate.* I haven't known any of its proponents (here and elsewhere) to have poo-pooed the whole marriage thing so I find your statement puzzling.

Adam Crocker

12-04-2005, 04:19 PM

I was kinda sticking up for Anthony.

I don't agree with his principles re love and what constitutes a happy marriage, but he's not as bad as some.

But it's also damning with faint praise innit?

west3man

12-04-2005, 06:00 PM

Not sure it contradicts anything. All the above does is tell you that my actions would shift depending on the context. My attitude overall would remain pretty consistent.

I wouldn't stand in the way of gay marriage if it became legal by vote. I wouldn't stand in the way of gay marriage if the courts or the congress correct and made their stance on marriage consistent. Like I said: there is only two real options here.
This is where I stopped because I think there's something wrong with this logic.

Telling someone you wouldn't stand in their way, if they've already gotten what they want, is a non-statement. It means you wouldn't do what you couldn't do.

Telling someone you'd stand in their way if they haven't gotten what they want, means you WON'T just step aside, as Gilda suggested.

In other words, recognizing a legal, gay marriage means little when compared to choosing not to oppose legalizing gay marriage. *scratches head*

anthony!

12-04-2005, 06:38 PM

This is where I stopped because I think there's something wrong with this logic.

Telling someone you wouldn't stand in their way, if they've already gotten what they want, is a non-statement. It means you wouldn't do what you couldn't do.

Telling someone you'd stand in their way if they haven't gotten what they want, means you WON'T just step aside, as Gilda suggested.

In other words, recognizing a legal, gay marriage means little when compared to choosing not to oppose legalizing gay marriage. *scratches head*

I don't see how you could say I'm standing in the way if I agree on the premise that the law be applied equally. On this principle we are in agreement.

Where I part ways with you all is in the context of a vote.

As the law stands now: I have the opinion that marriage be abolished, or that gay marriage be allowed OR that something be done to equalize the law. My personal preference is that marriage be abolished. Under the context of the law as it stands now...I don't see how you could properly justify not permitting gay marriage.

However, that doesn't mean I think gay marriage is great, nor does it mean that I won't question the ideas of the pro-gay marriage side.

west3man

12-04-2005, 06:43 PM

I don't see how you could say I'm standing in the way if I agree on the premise that the law be applied equally. On this principle we are in agreement.

Where I part ways with you all is in the context of a vote.

As the law stands now: I have the opinion that marriage be abolished, or that gay marriage be allowed OR that something be done to equalize the law. My personal preference is that marriage be abolished. Under the context of the law as it stands now...I don't see how you could properly justify not permitting gay marriage.

However, that doesn't mean I think gay marriage is great, nor does it mean that I won't question the ideas of the pro-gay marriage side.
I thought you said that if it were put to a vote, you'd vote against it. I'd never guess you could feel that way AND be of the opinion that "gay marraige be allowed..."

I guess I still don't understand where you're coming from. Sorry if I'm just missing the obvious.

Gilda Dent

12-04-2005, 07:12 PM

Try asking the other side that. I give the same answer as above.

The other side wants to force their view of morality on everyone through the use of the law. They try to claim that my side is doing the same in opposing that view, as if the two views are equivilent opposites. This is nonsense. We don't want to force our view of morality on anyone when it comes to marriage, we want everyone to be able to act according to their own view of morality. Those who find gay marriage immoral would be free to act on that belief. Allowing for gay marriage wouldn't affect the other side in any way.

I don't feel you've attacked my values. You've stated indifference to them from what I gather. Maybe a hint of disdain. Heck, with you I get off easy. And by "get off" I mean that non-sexually.

I respect your right to live your life according to your value system, even though I don't share it. I just want the same accommodation.

I think you're just bothered by the semantics here.

I'm bothered by the semantic game that some opponents of gay rights play when they substitute "gay lifestyle" for "homosexual", as if to imply that there's something that I'm doing, something activity that I've chosen that somehow affects them, or is different from what they're doing.

By virtue of fact that you're in a relationship with another woman means you have a gay lifestyle.

All you've done here is provide a definition of homosexual, which is circular reasoning. A homosexual lifestyle is a lifestyle engaged in by homosexuals. Such a definition is useless because the lives of homosexuals span a huge variety of behaviors and socio-economic classes. By the same reasoining, I'm also living an Asian lifestyle, a female lifestyle, a 5' 5" lifestyle, .

You've made a decision in life that carries with it certain convictions and beliefs in regards to sexual ethics. To me, thats all it means. If you see something more in that...well I don't really know what to say.

I didn't decide to find women sexually attractive any more than I decided to be Asian. If deciding to build a life and family with a woman is a homosexual lifestyle, there are millions of men living homosexual lifestyles.

Although I have to say...you can't get your partner pregnant.

She's my wife. But at least we're making some sort of progress. This is a defining characteristic, the ability to get your spouse pregnant, (or in the invese, to get pregnant by a spouse). The problem is that it's also a characteristic of many homosexual relationships. All you've done is define infertility, not homosexuality. Oh, and lest you haven't been reading, my wife will be pregnant someday, and I will be that child's mother.

So the question remains, what is it that I do as a part of my relationship that straight people don't?

The reality is that homosexuals fall in love, have sex, form domestic partnerships and then have to use extranneous means to form families either with the aid of donors, third parties or adoption.

The same is true of many heterosexual couples.

To me, thats bending means so you can get the end you want.

"Bending" the means? Those means are available to infertile couples who want to get pregnant. How is using them "bending the means"? We're not altering or pervering their purpose, we're using those things for exactly the purpose they we're designed for.

Everything works...and then that procreation matter just keeps getting in the way, and there really isn't anything anyone can do about it.

Well, you're just factually wrong on this one. There is something that can be done. Artificial inseminatiion, surrogacy, adoption. Modern technology has given reproduction to those of us to whom it was formerly unavailable, heterosexual and homosexual alike.

Gilda

anthony!

12-04-2005, 07:13 PM

I thought you said that if it were put to a vote, you'd vote against it. I'd never guess you could feel that way AND be of the opinion that "gay marraige be allowed..."

I guess I still don't understand where you're coming from. Sorry if I'm just missing the obvious.

I think the law ought to be applied equally.

But if asked to vote my opinion on a matter as a citizen, I'd vote for the option consistent with my own values. If NOT having gay marriage is supposedly not an acceptable route to take— why put it up for a vote, why make it an option?

If equality under the law is really the issue that all are concerned with— then its a matter purely for the courts and the legislature, not for the voters. Open it up to a vote, you open yourself to the personal beliefs of citizens.

Gilda Dent

12-04-2005, 07:29 PM

I think the law ought to be applied equally.

But if asked to vote my opinion on a matter as a citizen, I'd vote for the option consistent with my own values.

This two statements contradict each other. You claim to believe in equal application of the law, then defend voting against that belief, in favor of a law that treats people unequally.

If NOT having gay marriage is supposedly not an acceptable route to take— why put it up for a vote, why make it an option?

Every referendum on gay marriage has been sponsored by the anti-gay marriage crowd. My side doesn't want to put it to a general vote, because it's too easy for the demagogues to sway those in the middle to their side with simplistic rhetoric and scare tactics.

Gilda

anthony!

12-04-2005, 07:40 PM

So before anyone reads below, let me put in a preamble:

I consider what I wrote in this post to be an argument over the merits of gay marriage in and of itself.

What I'm arguing here had nothing to do with what I've posted regarding equal application of law and shouldn't be taken as a contridiction.

The same is true of many heterosexual couples.

Depending on how you look at it.

An infertile heterosexual couple, although challenged in the area of procreation STILL have the necessary parts to have children. They've still got the "seed" and the "soil", they just need a bit of fertilizer. Obviously, there are varying degrees of help an infertile heterosexual couple would need— but broadly speaking the parts and materials are still there. On the other hand, gay people will never have the proper parts.

We're not altering or pervering their purpose, we're using those things for exactly the purpose they we're designed for.

And it was nature's purpose that two people of the same sex be able to procreate? Although nature might have allowed homosexuality to happen, I can't see how it intended for them to procreate. You'd have an easier time arguing that homosexuality is nature's way of getting rid of the human species.

You're using things that are not in the marriage. You're bringing in an outside element that is not framed in the marriage. A straight couple, however infertile, would still in principle have the necessary elements for procreation— all they need is a substitute for something they would have had if not for reason X, Y and Z. A gay couple never had it from day one.

Modern technology has given reproduction to those of us to whom it was formerly unavailable, heterosexual and homosexual alike.

The fact alone that your equating a regular homosexual couple with that of an infertile heterosexual couple alone concedes the point that there is a clear difference between the naturally given capabilities of your everyday heterosexual couple and that of a homosexual couple. There's something "lesser than" there, and it requires extraneous means to make up for something that nature itself did not give you.

Ian Boothby

12-04-2005, 07:44 PM

Hey I think pre-marital sex is totally wrong, but I've never advocated criminalizing it or somehow tried to prevent someone from making their own choices. If there's one truth about freedom in this country: you do have a right to make the wrong choices in life, as hard as it is to say.
.

I'm a big believer in freedom to make the wrong choices too. I think being a Catholic is a wrong choice but as long as you don't get in the way of other folks' freedoms, I wish you and your choices the best.

Sabrinaset

12-04-2005, 07:50 PM

Whoa...at 257 pages, I'm not reading the whole thread :)

Gilda, there are demagogues on both sides of this argument.

I dunno, my opinion on this...If two men or women wanna live together, fine. If they wanna have a civil union of some sort, fine. Doesn't hurt me a bit. Heck, given my sexual history, who am I to stop them?

On the other hand, calling it "marriage", a term which for the past ten thousand years or so stood for the legal union between a male and female...well, I rattled it around in my dumb blonde head, and it seems to me that a few people want to change the definition of the word to match their lifestyle. And I'm sorry, but I don't think it works that way. Marriage, such as it is, well, it is what it is, and changing the definition simply to be PC, or to appease special-interest groups...I dunno. I guess I think that the term stands for something that shouldn't be changed, and if two males or females want to partner up, invent a different term for it, but let's leave the word "marriage" with all that it entails, legal and otherwise, alone.

I also can't help but suspect that there's a few people who want to get married more for the benefits that would accrue for their "partner" than for anything else.

Then again, if tomorrow, gay marriage was completely legalized, I wouldn't be screaming about it...I just think it shoudn't, is all.

anthony!

12-04-2005, 07:59 PM

This two statements contradict each other. You claim to believe in equal application of the law, then defend voting against that belief, in favor of a law that treats people unequally.

Except I'm given the choice. If I'm given the option of a.) making the world less like you think it ought to be vs. b.) making the world a little more like you think it ought to be, I think its clear I'm going to vote my opinion on the matter.

Like I've said earlier— I'm not going to waste time second guessing myself over values or debating if value A trumps value B.

My vote would merely say: I believe marriage to be defined as (blank).

If you see that as a vote for inequality and oppression— well, then you have a pretty broad definition of inequality and oppression.

Every referendum on gay marriage has been sponsored by the anti-gay marriage crowd. My side doesn't want to put it to a general vote, because it's too easy for the demagogues to sway those in the middle to their side with simplistic rhetoric and scare tactics.

Gilda

Your "side" wouldn't want to put it to a vote for fear of the outcome. I think its reasonable to think that if they believed the outcome to be the opposite, they wouldn't bother opposing it.

Whatever crappy tactics or rhetoric the anti-gay marriage crowd uses isn't relevent to the fact that the matter has been plopped into my lap as a voter. All I'm left with at that point are my values and principles.

I'm sure its only a matter of time before a court case invalidates all of that anyhow, establishing a "wider" definition of marriage.

I will say one thing about the referendums: I do think its embarassing that it has come to this. I'm very disappointed that these sides apparently can't come together to work out a solution. Instead they further stoke the fires of that so-called "culture war".

Again, the courts are the only real place for this matter to be resolved.