marriage equality in California

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I'll pass that on to the posters who have long since been intimidated into silence on this topic as well as the great majority of Americans and BOTH presidential candidates.

If being intimidated into silence means that we don't have to listen to people who wish to relegate our gay and lesbian friends and family to second class citizenry status, then I gotta say I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I cannot believe this is even a "topic" - appalling, shocking, offensive. Thankfully, time is on the side of equality here.
 
So in some circumstances, you think it's acceptable to intimidate people into silence?

Of course it is, assuming that such intimidation is done rhetorically, and not legislatively nor violently.

Freedom of speech does mean that bigots can have their voice, but it also means that others have the right to shout them down.

Be that as it may, law is also not determined by populism either. A mature democracy protects the human and civil rights of the minority, in addition to the majority, and the U.S. Constitution and subsequent amendments have ample examples of this.
 
So in some circumstances, you think it's acceptable to intimidate people into silence?

I'm not martha, but frankly, I do.

If somebody is too intimidated to stand on a street corner hurling anti-Semitic insults or racial slurs or somebody is too intimidated to call teenagers who are already mercilessly bullied "faggots" in the classroom - you bet your ass that works for me.
 
I'm not martha, but frankly, I do.

If somebody is too intimidated to stand on a street corner hurling anti-Semitic insults or racial slurs or somebody is too intimidated to call teenagers who are already mercilessly bullied "faggots" in the classroom - you bet your ass that works for me.

Do you believe that those scenarios are equivalent to the point Indy500 raised - namely, posters on FYM who disagree with the (on FYM) majority verdict on an issue being intimidated into silence?
 
Thats irrelevant to consensual sex and entering into a marriage contract. There is another side to the argument, but not a single argument trumps equality under the law and the right of people to consensually enter into relationships with whom they want without fear of state discrimination. The anti-gay side will loose, reactionary political movements can't cling forever.
 
Well, we've heard elsewhere on the forum that gender is nothing but a construct. :lol:
And thats a red herring. I don't think it matters if some posters treat gender as a social construct to the question at hand? Biological or social determinism for sexuality don't inform a question of marriage rights.

Even if people chose to have gay relationships they ought be given equal protection and recognition by the state.
 
I'm not martha, but frankly, I do.

If somebody is too intimidated to stand on a street corner hurling anti-Semitic insults or racial slurs or somebody is too intimidated to call teenagers who are already mercilessly bullied "faggots" in the classroom - you bet your ass that works for me.

Can I co-opt this answer?

Cos I like it.
 
Gender Melon. The difference between women and men is not a stereotype. Equal but very, very differnent.

In a secular democracy, "gender" is not a factor in determining whether one is able to enter into a mutual contract. Since marriage is primarily a legal and secular agreement in Western civilization, the perceived difference between women and men is irrelevant.

Secondly, if we are to argue, for a moment, on the religious significance of marriage in Western civilization, let's remember that "religious freedom" has wide latitudes here. "Marriage" is defined any number of ways, depending on the religious faith or even specific denominations. If we are to argue the religious dimension of marriage and say that it should have bearing on the secular definition of it, then whose definition should be included? Islam allows for one man, three women and gives men wide latitude to divorce freely, while not granting women the same. The FLDS has a religious support for underage polygamy. If we are to determine who should and should not marry, based on conservative Christian views on marriage, then why shouldn't these perspectives be included?

Instead, as I said before, marriage is defined in Western civilization according to secular values of mutual consent and equality, and has done so for decades. France, as an example, does not recognize religious marriages at all; you can have your ceremony at any church, synagogue, or mosque that you like, but you still won't have a legal marriage until you go to the courthouse. And, ultimately, U.S. marriage laws are equally secularly determined, and religions are free to recognize or deny any state-recognized marriage that they like. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, does not recognize any non-Catholic marriages; in their eyes, all married Protestant Christians are not married and, instead, are living in mass fornication. The state recognition of gay marriage, likewise, will not prevent the Catholic Church from refusing to recognize gay marriages, just as they refuse to recognize Protestant marriages that are performed daily, and nor will it prevent all conservative Christian churches from denying gay marriages, as well.

This is ultimately why opposition to gay marriage is equated with bigotry; from the point of view of freedom, logic, and reason, it is.
 
If being intimidated into silence means that we don't have to listen to people who wish to relegate our gay and lesbian friends and family to second class citizenry status, then I gotta say I'm not losing any sleep over it.

I cannot believe this is even a "topic" - appalling, shocking, offensive. Thankfully, time is on the side of equality here.

So opposition to gay marriage = segregated lunch counters?

I know you don't want to believe this, I know it's just easier label opinions you don't agree with as bigotry, but it is quite possible to intellectually and morally oppose same-sex marriage while affirming the equal humanity of homosexuals.
 
So opposition to gay marriage = segregated lunch counters?

I know you don't want to believe this, I know it's just easier label opinions you don't agree with as bigotry, but it is quite possible to intellectually and morally oppose same-sex marriage while affirming the equal humanity of homosexuals.
Only as an exercise in doublethink if you are taking liberal democratic principles into account.

Produce the arguments, what are the intellectual arguments against it.

What are the moral arguments against it.

Why don't those arguments extend to the sodomy rights? If it's intellectually and morally wrong for them to marry why isn't it wrong for them to gratify themselves?

Produce the bloody brilliant retort that shows how gay marriage as an extension of equal rights to taxpaying citizens is wrong.
 
Only as an exercise in doublethink if you are taking liberal democratic principles into account.

Produce the arguments, what are the intellectual arguments against it.

What are the moral arguments against it.

Why don't those arguments extend to the sodomy rights? If it's intellectually and morally wrong for them to marry why isn't it wrong for them to gratify themselves?

Produce the bloody brilliant retort that shows how gay marriage as an extension of equal rights to taxpaying citizens is wrong.

Personally, I'm in favour of gay marriage, on balance.

I see no great disadvantages. Many of the opponents of gay marriage do appear to exaggerate the perceived disadvantages, and, yes, SOME of them do appear to be motivated by homophobia.

On the other hand, if we look at the advantages of gay marriage, it does appear to annoy many homosexuals that they can't get married, and some view it as denying them their rights. As someone who has no great interest in getting married, I can't say I identify with this, but I am happy to take them at their word. So I say, legalise it.

What I somewhat resent is being told that if you listen to the words of a gay person who DISAGREES with gay marriage, you're listening to a self-hating gay person, and what's more, you're probably a bigot yourself for even listening to his arguments!

Bluntly, it strikes me as a case of liberal bigotry, or at the very least, double standard.

That's my 2c, take it or leave it.
 
I know you don't want to believe this, I know it's just easier label opinions you don't agree with as bigotry, but it is quite possible to intellectually and morally oppose same-sex marriage while affirming the equal humanity of homosexuals.

Sure, it is possible to say it, but it is quite another thing to actually back it up with a substantive and consistent philosophical basis.

Barring that, applying inconsistent double standards to different categories of people is, by definition, bigotry.
 
If you click on the link and scroll around 2/3rds of the way down the page, there's an article by an out gay man setting out his reservations about legalised gay marriage.

I could probably find thousands of blogs by straight men and straight women who think straight marriage is a waste of time, a trap, a legal quagmire, a anti-male or anti-female patriarchal/matriarchal construct designed to enslave (insert gender here). That doesn't mean straight marriage should be made illegal, does it?

A few posts by wary gay men or downright frightened gay men does not mean that all gay men and lesbians think second-class citizenship is acceptable.
 
I could probably find thousands of blogs by straight men and straight women who think straight marriage is a waste of time, a trap, a legal quagmire, a anti-male or anti-female patriarchal/matriarchal construct designed to enslave (insert gender here). That doesn't mean straight marriage should be made illegal, does it?

That is actually a very good point - BUT straight men or women who adopt those arguments aren't automatically accused of being 'self-hating', whereas gay people who express reservations about gay marriage frequently are - by their own community.
 
What I somewhat resent is being told that if you listen to the words of a gay person who DISAGREES with gay marriage, you're listening to a self-hating gay person, and what's more, you're probably a bigot yourself for even listening to his arguments!

Bluntly, it strikes me as a case of liberal bigotry, or at the very least, double standard.

The problem here is that it is a form of the argumentum ad verecundiam--"argument from authority"--logical fallacy. That is, rather than evaluating the substance of these arguments or the lack thereof, you're attributing added credence to them based solely on the source of them. This is no different than when medieval philosophers used to make dogmatic references to Aristotle to win arguments, and it would have been unthinkable to question whether the logic of Ille Philosophus was wrong.

Likewise, what makes the words of any "gay person" on "gay marriage" infallible? Frankly, I note their opinions, and rip apart their logic completely, because, like that of heterosexuals who argue against gay marriage, the logic of gay people against gay marriage is equally illogical.
 
Personally, I'm in favour of gay marriage, on balance.

I see no great disadvantages. Many of the opponents of gay marriage do appear to exaggerate the perceived disadvantages, and, yes, SOME of them do appear to be motivated by homophobia.

On the other hand, if we look at the advantages of gay marriage, it does appear to annoy many homosexuals that they can't get married, and some view it as denying them their rights. As someone who has no great interest in getting married, I can't say I identify with this, but I am happy to take them at their word. So I say, legalise it.

What I somewhat resent is being told that if you listen to the words of a gay person who DISAGREES with gay marriage, you're listening to a self-hating gay person, and what's more, you're probably a bigot yourself for even listening to his arguments!

Bluntly, it strikes me as a case of liberal bigotry, or at the very least, double standard.

That's my 2c, take it or leave it.
I think that we can both agree on liberal bigotry, or totalitarianism towards a perceived good end, being a bad thing for freedom.
 
Secondly, if we are to argue, for a moment, on the religious significance of marriage in Western civilization, let's remember that "religious freedom" has wide latitudes here. "Marriage" is defined any number of ways, depending on the religious faith or even specific denominations. If we are to argue the religious dimension of marriage and say that it should have bearing on the secular definition of it, then whose definition should be included? Islam allows for one man, three women and gives men wide latitude to divorce freely, while not granting women the same. The FLDS has a religious support for underage polygamy. If we are to determine who should and should not marry, based on conservative Christian views on marriage, then why shouldn't these perspectives be included?
All the above example are at least BASED on the notion of a man and a women coming together to produce and raise offspring. Eventually that partnership became one of equals just as we began to see all men as equals.
But differing gender is always in the formula.

Now. Must some definition of marriage exist for it to have any meaning? By defining marriage, will some people always be excluded? Are some of those definitions, while exclusionary, based on sound, proven principles and not just on bigotry.
Instead, as I said before, marriage is defined in Western civilization according to secular values of mutual consent and equality, and has done so for decades. France, as an example, does not recognize religious marriages at all; you can have your ceremony at any church, synagogue, or mosque that you like, but you still won't have a legal marriage until you go to the courthouse. And, ultimately, U.S. marriage laws are equally secularly determined, and religions are free to recognize or deny any state-recognized marriage that they like. The Roman Catholic Church, for instance, does not recognize any non-Catholic marriages; in their eyes, all married Protestant Christians are not married and, instead, are living in mass fornication. The state recognition of gay marriage, likewise, will not prevent the Catholic Church from refusing to recognize gay marriages, just as they refuse to recognize Protestant marriages that are performed daily, and nor will it prevent all conservative Christian churches from denying gay marriages, as well.

This is ultimately why opposition to gay marriage is equated with bigotry; from the point of view of freedom, logic, and reason, it is.

Then you define marriage for me (in 10 word or less) and explain why your very arguments couldn't be used by those you would see fit to exclude.
 
Produce the bloody brilliant retort that shows how gay marriage as an extension of equal rights to taxpaying citizens is wrong.

Under U.S law anyway, I would either eliminate marriage benefits in regards to insurance, taxes, etc or allow for civil unions. Unacceptable and far from bloody brilliant I know.

I must applaud Massachusetts in one regard. At least it's the elected legislature and not the courts taking action. :applaud:

How would you answer my rhetorical question a few pages back?

Suppose the law had been written 50 years earlier solely to prevent Mormons in neighboring states from traveling to Massachusetts to marry... and marry... and marry. THEN, in the early 1900's, it was enforced to prevent interracial couples from crossing state lines to marry.

Then opposition to polygamy in 2008 would be morally equivalent to racism as well wouldn't it?
 
Wryly amusing to see you state all men as equals then stipulating the importance of differing genders.

You throw out procreation as a prime cause, but that falls apart for IVF lesbians and gay men who have had children (or adopt, or use reproductive technologies). And then there are childless couples, are the infertile denied marriage rights?

That post wasn't an answer, you dance around the issue and throw a question back without stating why gay marriage should be illegal, your not throwing out an opinion and battering down the hatches, your obfuscating.

Marriage: contractual recognition of consensual relationship that guarantees joint property rights.

Key word is consensual; it excludes bestiality, it excludes children and coerced parties. It protects individual liberties, I have yet to see a better line of argument than that equal treatment.
 
All the above example are at least BASED on the notion of a man and a women coming together to produce and raise offspring. Eventually that partnership became one of equals just as we began to see all men as equals.
But differing gender is always in the formula.

But that basis has been irrelevant at least since the 19th century, when marriage became defined around love and mutual consent, rather than arranged marriages where love was optional and they were primarily about property alliances and creating heirs to such property.

The sheer fact remains that marriages performed over the last century or so have not been around children. We do not prohibit infertile heterosexual couples from marrying, nor do we sanction fertile heterosexual married couples that actively choose to not have any children at all, not to mention that gay couples can and do have children, in some cases biologically (where one of the partners acts as a "step-parent"--not unlike a large percentage of married heterosexuals) and adoptively, in other cases, as gay adoption is already legal in many jurisdictions, even if gay marriage is not.

In short, your primary argument about marriage being about children is de facto obsolete on point one, and inconsistent on point two.

Then you define marriage for me (in 10 word or less) and explain why your very arguments couldn't be used by those you would see fit to exclude.

Simple. Based on current understandings of philosophy and the state of Western civilization....

"Marriage is an equal, non-endogamous union between two consenting adults."

Polygamy is excluded for two reasons:

1) As it is currently practiced, it is unequal and abusive.
2) There is no sufficient demand to the contrary.

Arguments on incest can equally be applied to the heterosexual institution of marriage, as first-cousin endogamy was widely practiced in Christianity until recently.

And, as for animals and other inanimate objects, just as they are incapable of entering a legal contract (like children), they are just as incapable of entering a marriage contract (like children).

As for whether this definition can change, the Aristotelian/Thomist "Great Books" philosopher, Mortimer Adler, argued that, "if theology and religion are living things, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about efforts to modernize them. They must be open to change and growth like everything else."
 
Under U.S law anyway, I would either eliminate marriage benefits in regards to insurance, taxes, etc or allow for civil unions. Unacceptable and far from bloody brilliant I know.

How is that an intellectual/moral argument against gay marriage?
 
Back
Top Bottom