Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find it strangely backwards that it is often Christians who throw down the whole "polygamy" argument when really if any one should be marshalling a possible defense of polygamous marriages, it would have to be Christians since it's all over the Bible and it is considered acceptable through much of Scripture.
 
and yes that first article link I posted was terrible (and funny),
I skimmed about six and then just grabbed one, I should have chose better.
 
So here's the thing.

I think now is exactly the wrong time to decide that with the tides moving inexorably towards full equality there is no longer any need to try to change the minds of SOME opponents of gay marriage. It's exactly at this moment that people who are willing to try to understand the opponents of gay marriage and get them to change their minds can really make a big difference.

I don't see how this relates to the particular discussion here.

I agree with you that there are people who are undecided, or who just don't think about this issue very much because it's not personal to them, or whose religious beliefs run contrary to SSM but they maybe know gay people and feel differently and therefore their position is muddled, etc.

INDY is not these people. I think that it is a pointless exercise to try to change his mind. And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY. The rest of us have moved on and don't see this as an issue. People like my parents, who are religious, are not vocal supporters of SSM like I am, but they have accepted it as the law of the land, they have invited my gay friends into their home and welcomed them and they just don't really see SSM as something that is worth "debating" or fighting over. For them, the debate is over. INDY is not those people.
 
FWIW, I think INDY is just playing a role on here an mimicing the various anti-SSM articles out out by colonists who themselves aren't actually anti-gay but, like most US Senators, know they have a knuckle-dragging audience to play to. No one who writes a column for NRO isn't an urban elitist, no matter what they say in their columns. rush Limbaugh paid $1m for Elton John to play at his 4th (5th?) wedding. Likewise, every senator in the Senate has gay staff. It's impossible not to in DC. They know gay people. But they also know who their constituents are.

This is the trick the conservative media-entertainment complex has played on the gullible.
 
INDY is not these people. I think that it is a pointless exercise to try to change his mind. And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY. The rest of us have moved on and don't see this as an issue. People like my parents, who are religious, are not vocal supporters of SSM like I am, but they have accepted it as the law of the land, they have invited my gay friends into their home and welcomed them and they just don't really see SSM as something that is worth "debating" or fighting over. For them, the debate is over. INDY is not those people.

Oh, I agree about INDY. I sense his main pleasure is tweaking the liberals in here rather than actually changing anyone's mind.

But is it true for AEON and nbc (both of whom have suddenly returned after long absences? Might there be others, maybe lurkers. . .I don't know)? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But at the very least their tone is different.

I do think what I'm saying is germane to the discussion because the consensus of the majority here seems to be that the time for trying to change hearts and minds has past--and the implication doesn't seem to be limited to FYM but to society in general. That all the reasonable people have already been won over, and the rest are beyond saving. I just feel that is a little premature.

To decide that there's no point in trying to change a person's mind is actually a kind of disrespect. Sometimes that disrespect is earned--if a person demonstrates repeatedly that they are absolutely closed well then fair enough, and yes, I agree that there are some people-as has been mentioned--that fall into that category. But sometimes that disrespect is unearned. I guess I'm lucky I was looking for tickets to a Tokyo U2 show in 2006 because if I'd arrived here today would there be any one left who would have bothered to take the time to help turn around my thinking? (Granted, my thinking might have changed any way, but my point is that it was people in this forum who happened to play a large role).
 
And frankly the remnants of this "debate" right now are being carried out with people precisely like INDY.

My mom, for example, who I've been discussing this issue with for awhile is anti-SSM and trust me she is nothing like our friend from Indiana.

I believe she could be won over.
 
colonists

For a minute there I was trying to figure out your sophisticated use of the word colonists here. "In what sense does he mean colonist? Is it some sort of reference to a colonial worldview? Some sort of urbane euphemism that I just don't get?"

And then I realize you meant columnists. :wink:

This is the trick the conservative media-entertainment complex has played on the gullible.

Truth.
 
For a minute there I was trying to figure out your sophisticated use of the word colonists here. "In what sense does he mean colonist? Is it some sort of reference to a colonial worldview? Some sort of urbane euphemism that I just don't get?"

And then I realize you meant columnists. :wink:


Sorry. Damn you autocorrect.
 
My mom, for example, who I've been discussing this issue with for awhile is anti-SSM and trust me she is nothing like our friend from Indiana.

I believe she could be won over.

Right, but your Mom is probably not engaging in a public debate or writing angry letters to the newspaper or sending money to the Family Research Council, etc. Her private discussions with you are likely the same I had with my parents some years ago.
 
FWIW, I think INDY is just playing a role on here an mimicing the various anti-SSM articles out out by colonists who themselves aren't actually anti-gay but, like most US Senators, know they have a knuckle-dragging audience to play to.

I don't really think so. I actually think that INDY was able to engage on non-SSM topics quite reasonably until the Obama era and then totally lost the plot out of an irrational hatred of the man. His SSM posts have also gotten far more charged since, but I think that's not playing a role, it's more just a side effect of the overall animus that he seems to feel towards the government of the day. What I mean is that if the same events were playing out in the courts and in different state legislatures as they are now but there was a Republican president, INDY would still be against SSM but his tone and messaging would be much like it was 6 years ago (i.e. less adamant).

Just a guess.
 
The fact that there are many Americans who don't support SSM, despite that it will be increasingly legal in the future, is still an issue here - especially with business owners. There have already been cases where people who have beachfront property, own party halls and even wedding cake businesses, have refused same-sex couples who wanted to use their business for their weddings. This is leading, and will continue to lead to lawsuits. Obviously if you don't support SSM, well, don't have one. But if you run a wedding-oriented business, that's where the problems arise.

I'm curious as to what legally can be done about this issue. Also, can FYMers in other countries - Canada, the Netherlands, etc. - tell how this problem is resolved in their countries?

Actually, I'm not really sure what to tell you. I don't think I've heard of cases of that problem arising here. Sure, there's churches where they don't want to marry SS couples, but the couple goes to another church and that's that.

For companies who cater weddings, or locations to refuse same sex couples? Don't think I've heard of that. Maybe it's not all in the news here, but then again, we're somewhat tolerant folk who don't really mind what reason people have to party, as long as they pay the bill. :shrug:

I think we're also a different kind of people concerning lawsuits and everything. It seems in America it's much more common if something doesn't go your way to sue, while for us it's a rare thing to do. For me personally, if I'd be refused by a caterer that doesn't want to cater my marriage, I'd tell him to go fuck himself and get a different caterer. :shrug: Don't see the point in suing and forcing the guy to cater me, I don't even want an asshat like that to be in charge of my food.
 
So here's the thing.

I think now is exactly the wrong time to decide that with the tides moving inexorably towards full equality there is no longer any need to try to change the minds of SOME opponents of gay marriage. It's exactly at this moment that people who are willing to try to understand the opponents of gay marriage and get them to change their minds can really make a big difference.

It's important to understand that not all anti-SSM folks are the same (just as not all racists are the same). The reasons, motivations, and most importantly attitudes of such people do actually vary, and I've always felt it's short-sighted to paint them all with the same "hate-filled homophobe" brush. I say this because I was one of those people when I first joined this forum a mere seven years ago, and it was partly because of people on this forum (special mention to Melon, who probably deserves lifetime credit as one of the most influential people in my life for helping me formulate this change in my understanding, and of course the ever faithful Irvine) that I came to a complete 180 on my views on homosexuality and SSM. Many of you were there to see it happen and could probably go back in the archives and find the conversations where the turnaround happened.

Further I would counter the JiveTurkey conventional wisdom that says the religious people are the most hopeless in terms of convincing them of the error of their ways. I would argue that a religious person in the proper frame of mind is a better bet to convince than a non-religious one. After all, if the only "reasons" to oppose gay marriage are religious than any one who still is against it without a religious reason is truly beyond reasoning as they have no reason to argue with. You will find many religious people, I promise you, that are finding that the traditional take on homosexuality from scripture is dissonant with the spirit of their faith which calls for love and acceptance. And for many of these people, a brusque command to junk their silly superstitions is not going to cut it. Indeed, there are many gay people who don't care to give up their religious faith thank you very much but based on what they hear from the JT's and INDY's of the world (strange bedfellows, indeed) feel that they are forced to choose between their identity as a gay person and their belief in God.

Look, I get that it feels good to sneer at the other side for their idiocy. I get the argument that some "arguments" deserve mockery and scorn. And if your only goal is to enjoy the good feeling of being right, then fine. But if you want to change some one's mind--and I for one thing, think that's kind of important--mockery, scorn, dismissal is not the way to go about it.

Just wanted to say that's one of the absolute best posts I've ever read on here. Quoted for truth.

I would argue that a religious person in the proper frame of mind is a better bet to convince than a non-religious one.

Of course that goes against so many stereotypes that you encounter here, sometimes on a daily basis if you're around here long enough and here every day. But in my personal life I have found it to be true. I was just having a discussion about the ruling with my mother, and for me it all comes down to the fact that you cannot have selective equality in this world or in this country. That runs counter to every single thing that this country allegedly stands for. As women she and I both want equality, and I said that for me it's all really as simple as that. No need to complicate it. I consider her to be a very religious person, and she agrees with me. She fits no stereotypes, in spite of her age and the times she grew up in. There are plenty of people like that, of all ages and backgrounds.
 
I have no opinion on the subject.

I really don't. Why would I?

That's fair. I really don't have a developed opinion on the matter yet either (as far as the government's role in such an arrangement).

I was only curious to see the limits of your definition of marriage, and where you derived those limits (tradition, common sense, science...etc).

My definition (or the one that I accept) comes from my interpretation of the New Testament, tradition, and perhaps some social evolution factors (good for the tribe sort of thing) - not from the government. It's pretty straight forward - and perhaps this is a cop out, because until recently most people did not even have to worry about this, it just was.

So - that is what I would like to understand: what is your definition of marriage, what are the limits of that definition, and where do you derive that definition?

If you don't care to answer, I understand. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

Thanks.
 
But is it true for AEON and nbc (both of whom have suddenly returned after long absences? Might there be others, maybe lurkers. . .I don't know)? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But at the very least their tone is different.

Speaking for myself - I remained a lurker for quite some time between the long gaps of my posts.

The Supreme Court decision was a pivotal moment. I thought I would come back and test the waters - to see if a level of civility had returned (at least to a level that I feel is inviting and productive). So far - it seems it has, and that is a blessing.

Gay marriage was such a contentious issue here in this forum. Every time it makes the news, I always think of this forum and the people in it. Like you, my attitude changed quite a bit toward homosexuality. I still don't understand it - but I do know they are real human beings that live, laugh, and suffer like the rest of us and they are to be treated equally under the laws of men and the Law of Grace. However - unlike you, I have not come to conclusion that that sacrament of marriage includes homosexual partnerships.

Presently - I am more in favor of removing the government's role altogether in marriage.
 
So - that is what I would like to understand: what is your definition of marriage, what are the limits of that definition, and where do you derive that definition?

If you don't care to answer, I understand. Perhaps someone else can chime in.

Thanks.

I will give it a go as I find the question to be interesting and I'd like to hear people's opinions on it.

My definition is very similar to how marriage is currently defined under Canadian law (note that we do not have a definition of marriage in legislation; it is derived from the common law but legislation defines a spouse). Not because it is the law but because it makes intrinsic sense to me.

Marriage is a voluntary conjugal union between two persons to the exclusion of all others. Let's unpack that a bit.

Voluntary? To me it means that both people must enter into the union of their own free will and not under duress. They therefore need to Have the capacity to freely consent. Which would mean that stories of 9 year old girls in Afghanistan being forced to marry 60-year-old men would not qualify as marriages in a free and democratic society. It also to me has implications for polygamous marriage because I don't believe in absolute a priori consent. Meaning, that the first wife, at the time of her marriage can only consent to the marriage at hand. She cannot consent to be part of a union in the future which would introduce multiple other women whom she does not know. It is also questionable whether consent can be given freely by individuals who are by then bound to the union by finances, children, etc and for whom staying in the confines of a polygamous marriage has become a necessity. There are issues of duress there.

Conjugal? Here I do draw on tradition a bit because while marriage has not always been one man and one woman, the conjugal aspect was there. I support that remaining to be the case because I think there is a qualitative difference in a conjugal relationship over a friendly one. We can debate separately whether domestic contracts should be extended to friends or roommates. The conjugal aspect is also what would preclude marriages between related persons (within reason, as 6th cousins twice removed do not pose genetic challenges). My opinion here is based on biology and genetics primarily and secondarily on issues of consent between two individuals, one of whom could be in a position of power or influence over the other (i.e. father/daughter, uncle/niece).

Two persons? Covers men and women. I see no rational, secular reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. There is no evidence that suggests that harm will result to the society and same sex couples would still have to be subject to the same rules respecting consent.

To the exclusion of all others? Discussed above
 
I will give it a go as I find the question to be interesting and I'd like to hear people's opinions on it.

My definition is very similar to how marriage is currently defined under Canadian law (note that we do not have a definition of marriage in legislation; it is derived from the common law but legislation defines a spouse). Not because it is the law but because it makes intrinsic sense to me.

Marriage is a voluntary conjugal union between two persons to the exclusion of all others. Let's unpack that a bit.

Voluntary? To me it means that both people must enter into the union of their own free will and not under duress. They therefore need to Have the capacity to freely consent. Which would mean that stories of 9 year old girls in Afghanistan being forced to marry 60-year-old men would not qualify as marriages in a free and democratic society. It also to me has implications for polygamous marriage because I don't believe in absolute a priori consent. Meaning, that the first wife, at the time of her marriage can only consent to the marriage at hand. She cannot consent to be part of a union in the future which would introduce multiple other women whom she does not know. It is also questionable whether consent can be given freely by individuals who are by then bound to the union by finances, children, etc and for whom staying in the confines of a polygamous marriage has become a necessity. There are issues of duress there.

Conjugal? Here I do draw on tradition a bit because while marriage has not always been one man and one woman, the conjugal aspect was there. I support that remaining to be the case because I think there is a qualitative difference in a conjugal relationship over a friendly one. We can debate separately whether domestic contracts should be extended to friends or roommates. The conjugal aspect is also what would preclude marriages between related persons (within reason, as 6th cousins twice removed do not pose genetic challenges). My opinion here is based on biology and genetics primarily and secondarily on issues of consent between two individuals, one of whom could be in a position of power or influence over the other (i.e. father/daughter, uncle/niece).

Two persons? Covers men and women. I see no rational, secular reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. There is no evidence that suggests that harm will result to the society and same sex couples would still have to be subject to the same rules respecting consent.

To the exclusion of all others? Discussed above



This is about as good as I could ever come up with.

As for the sacrament of marriage, that's fine -- churches can refuse to marry whomever.

But under the law, your religious definition if marriage cannot be used to deny others the same rights you enjoy.




Polygamy is a thorny subject, but it's almost exclusively about heterosexuality. One distinction I would make is that, presently, in some states, a gay person cannot marry anyone. A heterosexual polygamist is free to marry someone everywhere.

If anything is a lifestyle choice, it's polygamy.
 
typo
I will give it a go as I find the question to be interesting and I'd like to hear people's opinions on it.

My definition is very similar to how marriage is currently defined under Canadian law (note that we do not have a definition of marriage in legislation; it is derived from the common law but legislation defines a spouse). Not because it is the law but because it makes intrinsic sense to me.

Marriage is a voluntary conjugal union between two persons to the exclusion of all others. Let's unpack that a bit.

Voluntary? To me it means that both people must enter into the union of their own free will and not under duress. They therefore need to Have the capacity to freely consent. Which would mean that stories of 9 year old girls in Afghanistan being forced to marry 60-year-old men would not qualify as marriages in a free and democratic society. It also to me has implications for polygamous marriage because I don't believe in absolute a priori consent. Meaning, that the first wife, at the time of her marriage can only consent to the marriage at hand. She cannot consent to be part of a union in the future which would introduce multiple other women whom she does not know. It is also questionable whether consent can be given freely by individuals who are by then bound to the union by finances, children, etc and for whom staying in the confines of a polygamous marriage has become a necessity. There are issues of duress there.

Conjugal? Here I do draw on tradition a bit because while marriage has not always been one man and one woman, the conjugal aspect was there. I support that remaining to be the case because I think there is a qualitative difference in a conjugal relationship over a friendly one. We can debate separately whether domestic contracts should be extended to friends or roommates. The conjugal aspect is also what would preclude marriages between related persons (within reason, as 6th cousins twice removed do not pose genetic challenges). My opinion here is based on biology and genetics primarily and secondarily on issues of consent between two individuals, one of whom could be in a position of power or influence over the other (i.e. father/daughter, uncle/niece).

Two persons? Covers men and women. I see no rational, secular reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. There is no evidence that suggests that harm will result to the society and same sex couples would still have to be subject to the same rules respecting consent.

To the exclusion of all others? Discussed above

That's a pretty good answer, Anitram - and it will probably be the legal foundation for marriage in the current era (as far as Western-style democratic governments are involved).

I think the idea of group marriages is truly a slippery slope (What's the limit? How many? An entire commune, state, country?).
 
Last edited:
As for the sacrament of marriage, that's fine -- churches can refuse to marry whomever.
Well, I tend to think of it not as refusing marriage as much as it is overseeing a sacred union between a man and a woman. But I do appreciate that you do not consider it government's role to interfere with the marital practices of the Church.


But under the law, your religious definition if marriage cannot be used to deny others the same rights you enjoy.

That is true. We live in a democracy - and democracy has had it's say. I will render unto Caesar what is Caesar's - though I still answer to a Higher Authority.
 
Letting markets and individuals decide... a very dangerous concept in the year 2013 digitize.


I'm really surprised you weren't on board with Windsor.

It was an old, rich, white lady trying to pay fewer taxes (which, according to you, thereby increases her freedom and liberty.)

What's not to love?
 
This isnt how polygamy works at all. Not is this analogous to sexual orientation.

Well, some men will say a man needs more than one woman, and use that to justify polygamy. So it does work like that.

Also, what about a bisexual woman married to a man - and both want to bring in another bisexual woman into their union and have a polygamous marriage? For the record, I am not saying all bisexuals are incapable of being monogamous. But guaranteed, there has to be at least a handful around who prefer polygamy/polyamory.
 
I actually think that INDY was able to engage on non-SSM topics quite reasonably until the Obama era and then totally lost the plot out of an irrational hatred of the man. His SSM posts have also gotten far more charged since, but I think that's not playing a role, it's more just a side effect of the overall animus that he seems to feel towards the government of the day.

Just a guess.

Good guess. But know that the president equally despises me and all who share my economics, politics, the institutions I support, and much of this country's history and founding principles.
The difference being I have but one vote to cast against the man. He, on the other hand, is fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

Just as he promised he would.


Obama: We Are 5 Days From Fundamentally Transforming America - YouTube
 
I'm really surprised you weren't on board with Windsor.

It was an old, rich, white lady trying to pay fewer taxes (which, according to you, thereby increases her freedom and liberty.)

One of the ironies of the case; if me and my ilk ran things there would be no inheritance tax. So yes, I wonder why she sought redress from marriage laws instead of high tax rates. But high taxes don't distress liberals do they?

What's not to love?

That a tax dispute can result in the radical redefinition of marriage by 5 judges for a country of 300 million people.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom