MERGED (yet again): All Gay Marriage Discussion Here Please

[pax]

BLS-

What kind of scientific "evidence" are you talking about? Most scientific evidence up to now has indicated that homosexuality has always existed, not only among humans, but other higher primates as well (if I am not mistaken). About the only evidence that might make me rethink my case is if gay parents were proven to be categorically harmful to children, which I sincerely doubt would happen, as (although these studies are few) studies up until now find no significant differences between children rasied by gay couples and children raised by straight ones.

Your argument is valid, yes, in terms of denying same-sex unions in your particular religious context. If you and your church feel they are inappropriate, your church cannot be compelled to perform such unions or recognize them. The Catholic Church has been selectively performing and recognizing some marriages and not others for a long time; it's perfectly legal. But the government offers equal protection under the law to all persons--a phrase which, incidentally, IS in the Constitution. There has not yet been a compelling LEGAL argument against allowing homosexuals to marry.

Which means, at least for me, that you are free to disapprove of such unions and choose a church that also disapproves of them. But our government is not free to pick and choose in a similar way. Discrimination on the basis of arbitrary distinctions (skin color, gender) has been struck down in the past and will, I hope, be struck down again. Any legal argument offered against same-sex marriage is strikingly similar to old arguments against "miscegenation" (which is certainly still a frowned-upon practice in some places, but it is not *illegal*).

No one believes you don't have the right to believe what you believe, BLS. But I, and I suspect others, believe that you do not have the right to compel your government to enshrine your belief in law when it is inherently discriminatory against other persons. As the old saw goes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."

 

[melon]

Hmm, guess I should start a thread about the whole seperation of church and state thing, as those five words together are not in the Constitution...

The First Amendment, as interpreted by Thomas Jefferson. You should support it; it was interpreted that way after a specific Christian denomination was trying to dominate the political arena, and another Christian denomination (Baptists, before they became all fundamentalist) wrote a letter to Jefferson in protest. That was his response.

But, I guess, people don't think it is necessary as long as THEIR religious beliefs are legislated. But wait until public schools start praying the "Hail Mary" aloud and pray the Rosary. That's when evangelicals and fundamentalists will wake up to the wisdom of the separation of church and state.

Melon

 

[meegannie]

Britney and her fellow Jason were married in accordance with the law of the state of Nevada (the only state, need I remind you, which requires no waiting period for marriage licenses)

Half of the states require no waiting period for a marriage license. http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm

 

[meegannie]

Well I had a biology book that said an organism is only fit if it passes on its genes, a monogamous homosexual couple, (without modern medical procedures) won't do so.

That makes no sense whatsoever. An organism may be 'unfit' (thought I think that word has some very questionable connotations) from a scientific standpoint if it is incapable of passing on its genes and always has been, but to claim that celebate people or homosexuals are unhealthy because they aren't passing on their genes is ridiculous because those people are still biologically capable of doing so.

 

[meegannie]

BLS-

What kind of scientific "evidence" are you talking about? Most scientific evidence up to now has indicated that homosexuality has always existed, not only among humans, but other higher primates as well (if I am not mistaken).

Not just primates:

http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp

 

[Dreadsox]

I personally suspect that while some of it is based on homophobia, in actuality a lot of could be more based on a personal view that it is wrong, yet that is then taken to mean it is a belief which the holder shares for ALL.

Nice kid gloves Angela

I think the statement you are referring to is one god awful blanket statement to make about the topic. In my opinion, it borders on a personal attack on people who are opposed to "gay" marriage.

Then we come back and find people asking why is nobody presenting an argument for the other side. And personally, I think with glee at the fact that there have been no responses.

The argument that people are "homophobes" if they do not support gay marriage holds about as much water as people who made the argument that those opposed to the war were suppoters of Saddam Hussein. The two positions DO NOT make the second part true.

So while people are sitting here, saying, why is no one responding, maybe think about how they were treated in this thread because they had a different opinion, or even based on their religious beliefs. I have some excellent religiously based articles that present two sides to this topic. I have not posted them because supposedly it is an invalid argument. That is a crock. I found an article that demonstrated how George Washington dealt with two men who had sex in the continental army, to present the case that this is not what the founding fathers envisioned for America.

Now maybe you would have found them to be weak arguments. I would have presented them because I enjoy taking both sides but a voice inside me said not to. I personally could give two shites about someone on an internet board labeling me a homophobe in a blanket statement here. I am secure about who and what I am.

BLS.....your article was excellent. I appreicate your attempt to continue the debate in a civil manner. I thought your article had some interesting points. I may not have agreed with them, but I am impressed that you continued to make your arguments. I am dismayed at the fact that there are people asking for the other side to respond, and when you do, you get slapped around by a group. Keep the faith.

 

[bonosloveslave]

Thanks Dread

 

[Angela Harlem]

Dreadsox, after the first line, was the rest at me? Because if it is, you have sorely misinterpreted my reply.

 

[Dreadsox]

No....twas not....that is why I reffered back to the statement you quoted.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I feel my alarming level of anger ebbing away...
ahh.
this is more peaceful.


Good. I am glad, also glad I didn't jump the gun there and attack you.... Cos I would have you know...

But anyway...

I am now reading properly what you wrote and it is a good point. One I was trying to grasp in my own head after reading a few reponses, that a personal belief does not always need to be a belief a person holds for all. I think Pax also hinted at this kind of thing indicating in the last that there is a link between one person's own views mirroring an altogether unfair one held by a government as being somehow condoning, or a reason to therefore assume that the individual who holds a similar view is therefore fully supportive of the government's stance. Has anyone asked, in this case BLS if she supports the government's control over gay marriages? We shouldn't need to. She is as was said already entitled to her views, but that aside, it is being assumed she is supportive of that - and therefore agrees and is homophobic? No one actually used the term and I suspect this debate might get a bit nasty now as we argue back and forth over semantics, but if we really believe in the right to hold our beliefs, we really must adhere to that. And not leap to conclusions or convenient assumptions.

I apologise for this being extremely convoluted. I cannot function this late at night.

 

[Dreadsox]

I feel my alarming level of anger ebbing away...
ahh.
this is more peaceful.

If you want to fight...we can...hehe

 

[martha]

I really dont think anyone in here feels they have such a handle on what is right for all that they believe it should be the norm for all.

The problem is that some people, here or not, try to codify into law what they feel is "the norm" for all.

 

[martha]

BLS.....your article was excellent. I appreicate your attempt to continue the debate in a civil manner. I thought your article had some interesting points. I may not have agreed with them, but I am impressed that you continued to make your arguments. I am dismayed at the fact that there are people asking for the other side to respond, and when you do, you get slapped around by a group. Keep the faith.

I was doing some slapping because people are using that "excellent" article and its reasoning to file lawsuits to impress their bigoted views on me and my fellow Americans, who are protected under the Constitution. I asked for a response based on LAW, not some wishful thinking about some "good old days" of paternal responsibility which has never exsisted to the extent hoped for in that article. As long as these people keep trying to discriminate based on what they wish were true, I will continue to call them on it.

 

[Dreadsox]

The problem is that some people, here or not, try to codify into law what they feel is "the norm" for all.

There are MANY laws that do this. That does not make the laws bad.

 

[martha]

No one believes you don't have the right to believe what you believe, BLS. But I, and I suspect others, believe that you do not have the right to compel your government to enshrine your belief in law when it is inherently discriminatory against other persons. As the old saw goes, "Your right to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."

As usual, nicely summarized.

 

[martha]

There are MANY laws that do this. That does not make the laws bad.

They are bad laws when the application of them is arbitrarily based on gender, sexual orientation, color, race, or religion.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The problem is that some people, here or not, try to codify into law what they feel is "the norm" for all.

I agree with you thoughts on this issue entirely Martha and you are right. The one thing I wanted to just highlight was though, that some people in here are seemingly being attacked and thought to agree wholeheartedly with this very view that one view fits all. I dont think anyone ever said it did. In here at least. To refer in a roundabout way to the person in question...

Dread...pick your topic sonny!!

 

[Dreadsox]

I really hate going back to this argument......I do not bring it up to argue about Polygamy but to make a point that this could be viewed as a restriction upon religion.

Laws against Polygamy could be viewed as laws against a persons right to religious freedom.

 

[BVS]

I really hate going back to this argument......I do not bring it up to argue about Polygamy but to make a point that this could be viewed as a restriction upon religion.

Laws against Polygamy could be viewed as laws against a persons right to religious freedom.

Polygamy is never a truly consentual relationship, therefore does not fall into the definition of consenting adults. Therefore can be argued outside the religious argument. The one piece of evidence offered so far on banning gay marriage that was not religious was falliable because it also eliminated many heterosexual marriages. This is why the question still gets posed because there has not been any evidence given.

So then the debate turns into technicalities as to what is the true definition of "separation of church and state"? It's gotten ridiculous. This whole issue is built of straw, yet people keep grasping.

 

[nbcrusader]

Polygamy is never a truly consentual relationship, therefore does not fall into the definition of consenting adults.

I am not sure this is true.

If we are trying to define marriage without religious sources, what are the purely securlar historical sources that define marriage? And what was the rational for any limitations placed on a secular marriage?

 

[Dreadsox]

Polygamy is never a truly consentual relationship, therefore does not fall into the definition of consenting adults.

What? I agree with NB....how can you say this? Again...I am not interested in another Polygamy debate...maybe if you want to discuss this in the Polygamy thread we can.

Mormons in the late 1800's would view the restrictions upon Polygamy as a violation of the separation of church and state.

That was my point.

 

[BVS]

Here's my explanation from the polygamy thread.

There's no way it could be consenting 100% of the time. Most polygamy marriages is one man and many wives. The wives usually have their own bedrooms and he sleeps with one wife at a time. Let's say three of his wives wanted him on the same night, two of them are going to have to be denied. In that case it's always the man's choice and there is no true consent.

 

[nbcrusader]

But the women consent to that form of relationship.

 

[BVS]

But the women consent to that form of relationship.

So you only have to consent at the formation of the relationship?

 

[Dreadsox]

Mormons in the late 1800's would view the restrictions upon Polygamy as a violation of the separation of church and state.

That was my point.

 

[nbcrusader]

So you only have to consent at the formation of the relationship?

For marriage, yes. Besides, in your example, each of the wives are empowered to deny their husband as well.

 

[BVS]

For marriage, yes. Besides, in your example, each of the wives are empowered to deny their husband as well.

So anything goes after the vows?

Only having the power to say yes or no doesn't make it 100% consentual in my book. But hey I don't write the laws.

 

[Dreadsox]

Mormons in the late 1800's would view the restrictions upon Polygamy as a violation of the separation of church and state.

That was my point.

 

[BVS]

Mormons in the late 1800's would view the restrictions upon Polygamy as a violation of the separation of church and state.

That was my point.

Hey Dread, was this your point?

 

[nbcrusader]

Well, now we are looking at regulating the lifetime of a marriage. I bet there are instances during the course of any marriage, civil union, domestic partnership, life mate relationship where things are not 100% consentual according to your example.