Finally, America is safe!

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ted Kennedy says we should be spending this time talking about gas prices, health care costs and the Iraq war. Those aren't advantagous to Democrats?

I don't give a flying fig who those things are "advantageous" to -- we should be talking about those things because they really matter, because they have a vast impact on society as a whole. If talking about those things is a "disadvantage" to the Republican party, doesn't that just confirm that they're a bunch of self-serving <insert favourite invective here> that need to be tossed out?

Can you give me one, just one credible reason how Adam marrying Steve has any impact on you personally, let alone society as a whole?

I can sure do that for either of those three things mentioned above.

Legalizing prostitution, drug use, consentual incest, polygamy or beastiality have no personal effect on me or my family. But it'd be selfish in my view to only look at things that effect me directly. I oppose them because they are bad for society. If you don't value Judeu-Christian values that this country was founded on as much as I do, then it's understandable that we'd differ in this area. But to only look at how things effect me (or you for that matter) is wrong.

Hence the reason I also added the phrase let alone society as a whole. And personally, none of those things you've mentioned above, I see as being particularly bad for society as a whole, either. I find some of them revolting (incest/beastiality), but others (legalized prostitution and drug use, in particular) I think would actually go so far as to improve society (even though I have no interest in partaking of either activity). It's not the Judeo-Christian values I object to -- it's that people think religious values should be used to guide society even to the point of persecuting minority segments of the population. Isn't that partly why this country was founded in the first place? To escape religious persecution?

That said, can you provide any valid demonstration of how gay marriage harms society?

Quote:
1) Let's be honest that the radical agenda is to change marriage as has been defined throughout history. [...] To say that marriage included gay couples prior to the Christian faith is flat out wrong too (attn: marriage existed prior to Christ.)

I'm quite well aware that marriage existed before Christ. I'm also quite well aware that the concepts of marriage have changed and evolved over time, too -- both before, and after Christ. Polygamy was, at one point, acceptable (and still is, in some cultures). The bride, at one point, was considered nothing more than property, for which a bride-price was paid. According to the Bible, a man is required to marry his brother's wife, should his brother die -- we don't do that, anymore, either. Nor do we practice arranged marriages, though some cultures still do. Inter-racial marriages were also unacceptable at one point, too. There may or may not have been gay marriages at some point in history (I don't know of any instances of such, but, unlike you, I'm not willing to categorically deny such possibilities -- I'm not a scholar of the topic), but it doesn't matter: the crux of the argument is that you're defense is "tradition says...", but tradition is a) constantly changing, and b) culturally dependant.

Quote:
To say that's it's radical to want to keep marriage as it's defined today means that all of society has been radical until this was brought up several years ago.

Not really. I don't think it's radical to have behave based on ignorance. What I consider radical is, having been educated about the ignorance -- realizing the hypocrisy, oppression and bigotry involved in the subject -- to continue in that behaviour, and to defend that continued behaviour based on flimsy arguments drawn almost purely from religion. It's not radical to want to be treated as any other human being.

Quote:
2) Republicans are initiating this amendment to time with the 06 elections, but they in no way started this ball of wax from rolling. To say that they started it because they suddenly in 2002 stopped issuing marriage licenses to gay couples is beyond silly.

I agree that the Republicans may not have started the ball rolling, and I didn't claim that Republicans did so. The word I used was conservatives, with a lower-case 'c'. Further, it's not that they suddenly stopped giving out marriage licenses -- it's that they refused to give them out in the first place. The only two courses of action available after that, as a gay couple, is to either a) go along with the crowd, and accept your sub-citizen status, or b) seek redress through the legal system.

Quote:
3) Even thought the timing was political, we all know that Democrats not only would do the same thing, they ARE doing the same thing by raising issues their base feels strongly about.

Oh, yes... the tired old "well the other guys are doing it" argument.

Quote:
I argue that what constitutes a family is very vital to our society and most on my side agree with me.

I agree -- strong family values are very important. However, there is a very large sector of the US that needs to wake up to the fact that a strong family isn't due to its constituent members -- it's made through love, caring, generosity, sacrifice, communication, and a whole host of other things. Conservatives are willing to deny the potential for a strong family based on nothing more than the presence of a penis and a vagina.

Quote:
I assume that most of you argue that global warming is a bigger issue.

Not global warming, so much as a comprehensive, and sustainable energy policy -- I think the solutions for global warming will fall out of that. However, yes... I think the question of "how can we continue to advance our society when continuing to advance in our current direction is detrimental to our society's existance" is a hell of a lot more important than whether or not two "roommates" can get that little piece of paper that says they are, in fact, married.

Quote:
Shouldn't the people we elect advance the issues we feel strongest about?

Yes, but I also expect them to prioritize those issues with the society, as a whole, in mind -- not on getting re-elected.

Quote:
To you it's just a silly (or bigoted) social issue, but social issues were enough to sway the 04 election because they were largely ignored by Democrats.

Agreed -- the DNC was being run by idiots.

Quote:
It's what lost Ohio to Rebuplicans.

Honestly, I don't think so. I think there were far more nefarious things happening in Ohio than simple DNC idiocy, that lost it to Republicans. (Note that the provided link is not to some random leftwing conspiracy-theorizing blog, but to Rolling Stone magazine. Put your political biases behind you while reading it, and look at it from a purely numbers perspective.)

Quote:
I'd suggest continueing your arguements to try to sway people because if you ignore it, the same thing could happen.

Of course... you and Jeff both give me hope that rational (or even semi-rational) discourse isn't as futile as I sometimes feel it is.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 07/06/2006 19:37

Quote:
Either that or we just ban marriage outright. No benefits, no tax breaks, nothing. The curches and the like can do as they please, but on a civil level nada.

That is a possible solution -- it was mentioned in Paul Martin's speech, linked above. I'll leave you to read his response to that proposal, as I'm in full agreement (and he's far more eloquent than I).

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 07/06/2006 23:54

Again, what exactly is it that social conservatives are so afraid of that they need to "defend" from?

Well, it's obvious, isn't it?

Once same-sex marriages are allowed, then everybody will be doing it. No more children will be born, the work force will decline with devastating effects on the economy.

I mean, who in their right mind would even want to marry one of those icky opposite-sex people, anyway? They probably all have cooties or something.

Yep, just as soon as people are allowed to have same-sex marriages, the institution of heterosexual marriage will collapse. Probably just a matter of weeks, a year or two at most.

If we're not careful, those leftist liberals will destroy the very things that once made America great.

Oh, wait... I think the Bush cabal has beaten us to it.

tanstaafl.

Posted by: tanstaafl.

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 00:13

Marriage, as defined today IS under attack.

Ummm... by whom, exactly?

Who is attacking your marriage? If two women in Nebraska want to call themselves married, how in the hell does that have any impact, any bearing whatsoever on the personal relationship between you and your wife?

And if it doesn't, how in God's name (or anybody else's name, for that matter) can you possibly justify the extraordinary arrogance of assuming that it is even any of your business, much less that you should be entitled to do something about it?

tanstaafl.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 02:51

William J. Bennett on the Jon Stewart show.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 11:18

Quote:
William J. Bennett on the Jon Stewart show.

Hehh.. Bennett's statements sound extraordinarily similar to the ones used to justify other big right feather issues there. Amazing, that.

Cheers

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 11:20

Quote:
Who is attacking your marriage? If two women in Nebraska want to call themselves married, how in the hell does that have any impact, any bearing whatsoever on the personal relationship between you and your wife?

Got to agree with that. I can't see any threat in allowing gays/lesbians to marry, if their marrying is such a threat then so surely is their existence?

Posted by: hybrid8

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 11:59

Shhhh.... That's already being worked on too.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 13:06

The best part of that interview is how effortlessly Stewart refutes each and every point Bennett tries to make. You can see the gears turning in Bennett's head, and if you look very closely, the steam coming out of his ears as he tries to shape his argument so as not to come off as a bigot. Probably the best Stewart moment since he annihilated Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on Crossifre.

pwnge!

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 14:37

Quote:
Yep, just as soon as people are allowed to have same-sex marriages, the institution of heterosexual marriage will collapse. Probably just a matter of weeks, a year or two at most.

Heh. When Martin's government passed the bill legalizing gay marriage in Canada, he forced the cabinet to vote for it, and another party (NDP?) whipped everyone to vote in favour, as well. One of Steven Harper's election platforms was that he was going to bring the issue up again, and allow a free vote on the topic. (Not-so) oddly enough, he's having a difficult time drumming up support, even amongst his own party, to have the issue retabled, since a lot of MPs who were against the bill at the start, have realized in the intervening time that society has not, in fact, collapsed since gay people were accorded the right to marry.

It's the same story, over and over:

Society will collapse if we abolish slavery!

It didn't.

Society will collapse if we abolish segregation!

It didn't.

Society will collapse if we give women the right to vote!

It didn't.

Notice the pattern? In each, and every one of the above cases, conservatives predicted catastrophe, and yet, somehow, society not only didn't collapse, but it actually improved.

Society will collapse if we let gay people get married!

No, it won't.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 15:21

Quote:
Probably the best Stewart moment since he annihilated Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala on Crossifre.

Agreed.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 08/06/2006 22:58

Quote:
I support your right to be a bigot.

Thanks, man! I appreciate that. After all, it's my constitutional right!

Quote:
Just don't allow the federal governments or state governments to impose bigotry on anyone else.

WTF is a bigot anyways?

A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own.

I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing. I am intolerant of the concept of marriage being redefined and destroyed. Perhaps some people are intolerant in my belief that a marriage is defined as man + woman?

I especially like the "marriage was once just a property arrangement" argument used by Jon Stewart and someone else in this thread. It's a tactic to belittle marriage and portray it as unworthy of being protected. I'm sure "marriage" has been defined as many different things in many different cultures during many different times. That doesn't make my definition of it worthless.

Quote:
Do you have any type of work trailer or pickup truck we can carry a large load of rocks in? I think it's time for a few stonings. After all, that's the way certain problems have always been solved. And it IS the Judeo-Christian way.

The term "Christian" derived from a man known as Jesus Christ. But you already knew that. Did you know this is one of Jesus' most famous quotes?

Let he without sin throw the first stone

He said this to a group of people preparing to stone a woman. People were stoned all the time 2000 years ago. That doesn't mean it's the "christian way". Quite the opposite, actually. Ever noticed how all 1st world nations were originally founded on christian principles? The same 1st world nations that don't stone people? If you want to see people beaten to death in the streets by angry mobs, look no further than the middle east, where christianity is non-existant. Do a search for some videos online and see for yourself.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 03:37

Quote:
I'm sure "marriage" has been defined as many different things in many different cultures during many different times. That doesn't make my definition of it worthless.

Correct. Your definition is not worthless. It's been the tradition for a significant part of recent history.

But if you admit that historically, marriage has changed as cultures changed, then you don't have any logical reasoning behind any fight to prevent it from changing again.

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 07:23

Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing. I am intolerant of the concept of marriage being redefined and destroyed. Perhaps some people are intolerant in my belief that a marriage is defined as man + woman?

How does a civil union in any way redefine or destroy the concept of religious marriage?

Posted by: DWallach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 12:15

I believe the root of the objection to a "redefinition of marriage" is that it somehow "lessens" marriage if anybody can do it. The standard Republican argument goes something like this:

1) Marriage is the bedrock of society. It's all about having stable, healthy families.
2) If you redefine marriage to include "non-traditional" pairings, then you (somehow) damage the institution of marriage.
3) Ergo, you're damaging the bedrock of society.

The fallacy in this argument is point 2. The only effect on "traditional" families would be that their children might be somewhat more likely to assume a homosexual lifestyle due to the lower societal stigmatization of such. That particular change has been well underway for decades and is unlikely to ever go back, regardless of any laws passed.

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 12:32

Quote:
The only effect on "traditional" families would be that their children might be somewhat more likely to assume a homosexual lifestyle due to the lower societal stigmatization of such. That particular change has been well underway for decades and is unlikely to ever go back, regardless of any laws passed.

Absolutely, and any society that can't accept that (yes Billy, including all those muslim countries that either ignore homosexuality or treat homosexuals appallingly badly) is surely an unjust and dishonest one isn't it?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 12:33

Quote:
After all, it's my constitutional right!

You really need to decide if you're a student at UTwente in the Netherlands or a gun-toting redneck from Louisiana. For example.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 12:43

Quote:
Ever noticed how all 1st world nations were originally founded on christian principles?

Yup. Those Japanese are down with the Christianity. The Israelis, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and Turks, too.

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 14:53

Quote:
Quote:
Ever noticed how all 1st world nations were originally founded on christian principles?

Yup. Those Japanese are down with the Christianity. The Israelis, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and Turks, too.

Oh, and don't forget Italy -- now *there's* a country that didn't exist before Christianity!

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 15:08

Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing.

And yet, you want to stop them from getting married? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Quote:
I am intolerant of the concept of marriage being redefined and destroyed. Perhaps some people are intolerant in my belief that a marriage is defined as man + woman?

What a stupid argument. If it's your belief that marriage is defined by a man and a woman, then, when it's your turn to get married, you're free to marry a woman (assuming that you're male). No-one is trying to keep men and women from getting married, so to say that some people are intolerant of your belief is nonsensical. On the otherhand, there are a lot of folks out there who are not free to apply their own definition of marriage -- simply because it doesn't fit your definition.

America -- land of the not-really-free.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 09/06/2006 15:21

True. Even the modern nation of Italy, not formed until the 1860s or so, was not a Christian state, fighting wars against the "Papal States", but it was certainly influenced by Christianity, so I left it out.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 10/06/2006 10:43

Quote:
How does a civil union in any way redefine or destroy the concept of religious marriage?

There are some (few, maybe) who are fine with civil unions, but oppose the state recognizing gay marriages.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 10/06/2006 11:09

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm not intolerant of gays. I've got no right or business stopping them from what they're doing.
And yet, you want to stop them from getting married? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

More specificly, the view is that the state should not recognize the marriage. The state cannot, nor should it, prevent people from entering into any type of relationship they wish, assuming all parties are willing and able to make rational decisions. People doing it, though, is different from the state recognizing it, and that's what people have an issue with. Having the state say what is or isn't a marriage is problematic because its definition will invariably differ from some people's deeply held beliefs. In a country like the US, where the state is not supposed to interfere with religion, we value our beliefs and rightly consider it our right not to have the state define our doctrines. Regardless of the history or origins of marriage, there are many who feel that it is a religious arrangement with certain conditions. There are others who do not view it as such, and for those who DO view it as a religious arrangement, there are many different variations on what exactly that means.

The real pickel we're in is that the state is ALREADY invovled in this definition of marriage, which is pretty tragic IMHO. Because no matter what, when the final word comes down, someone's definition is going to be labeld as wrong, and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage, those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled. And when I say this, I mean it equally as strong for those on either side of the issue.

I know this is all a rehash of what I've said before, and that getting the state out of the marriage defining business is unrealistic, but IMHO it is the only outcome that will honor the spirit under which our country was founded. No, this isn't the conservative party line, but it is what I think is right.

Posted by: DLF

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 10/06/2006 16:14

You can sure tell when Jon has truly thought about an issue and has come to a passionately held belief about it, can't you?

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 11/06/2006 05:40

Quote:
There are some (few, maybe) who are fine with civil unions, but oppose the state recognizing gay marriages.

A religious marriage? Surely it's not the state's business to decide whether a marriage is contrary to any religious law is it? If a Christian church (or other religious org) decides to marry gay men or women then surely that's an issue for that church and it's leadership and followers isn't it?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 11/06/2006 09:00

Quote:
A religious marriage? Surely it's not the state's business to decide whether a marriage is contrary to any religious law is it? If a Christian church (or other religious org) decides to marry gay men or women then surely that's an issue for that church and it's leadership and followers isn't it?

Right. It is an issue for the church and NOT the state. The state should remain silent on the issue. Ultimately I'd say the state shouldn't recognize any kind of marriage- they should ALL be civil unions. This way the criteria for having a civil untion could be set up along the lines not of gender or religious belief, but whatever meets the needs of society best (insurance benifits, inheritence laws, etc.).

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 11/06/2006 10:49

Agree with you Jeff. The sooner that happens the better (in the UK too)

Posted by: andy

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 11/06/2006 14:42

Quote:
Agree with you Jeff. The sooner that happens the better (in the UK too)

In effect that is what we already do have in the UK. If you want a church marriage you can go to a church. If you are a hetrosexual couple you can get a civil marriage (which has no religious content). If you are a homosexual couple you can get a civil partnership, which as far as I know confers the same rights as marriage.

What we still do have is the term marriage attached to civil partnerships for hetrosexual couples. You wouldn't think this would be a problem, after all it is just a technicality.

It is though. I have a friend who has lived with her partner for 15 years or so. She refuses to take part in anything called a marriage, because of the baggage she says is attached to the word. Because of this her rights to her partners pension, inheritance tax implications etc are drastically different than if she were married or was able to sign up to a civil partnership.

We keep telling her not to be so silly, but she can't get past the sticking point of the seemingly simple word "marriage".

Posted by: peter

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 06:09

Quote:
I have a friend who has lived with her partner for 15 years or so. She refuses to take part in anything called a marriage, because of the baggage she says is attached to the word. Because of this her rights to her partners pension, inheritance tax implications etc are drastically different than if she were married or was able to sign up to a civil partnership.

Hmmm. I guess if the only reason she and her bloke are being denied a "civil partnership" is because they're straight, they might have a case under discrimination laws...

Peter

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 07:51

Quote:
In effect that is what we already do have in the UK. If you want a church marriage you can go to a church. If you are a hetrosexual couple you can get a civil marriage (which has no religious content).

Not really, as a muslim I had to have a religious ceremony AND a civil one as the muslim one has no legal recognition, either ALL faith ceremonies should have legal standing or none (my preference).

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 07:56

Quote:
her rights to her partners pension, inheritance tax implications etc are drastically different than if she were married or was able to sign up to a civil partnership.

I think that's my core point the civil/legal union/partnership/contract (whatever you want to call it) should be the primary determinant when it comes to legal and taxation matters, a friend of mine got married to his partner of 15 years recently as she had a cancer scare and (apparently) he wouldn't automatically have been acknowledged as the legal guardian of their child unless they were married.

The religious marriage (whichever faith) is purely your contract in the eyes of your God isn't it?

Posted by: andy

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 08:08

Quote:
the muslim one has no legal recognition

I had no idea that the muslim marriage had no legal recognition.

After a quick bit of Googling it appears that it applies to all religious marriages that aren't in a Church of England (or Church of Wales) church. So at least it isn't descrimination against non-Christians as the same applies to other Christian denominations.

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 08:16

Quote:
After a quick bit of Googling it appears that it applies to all religious marriages that aren't in a Church of England (or Church of Wales) church.

You sure? I thought Catholics and Jews had theirs recognised.

Posted by: andy

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 08:19

A lot of people in the UK still think that there is such a thing as "common law marriage" in England and Wales, which confers rights to unmarried couples after a period of time.

In reality, no such thing exists. If you aren't married or have a civil partnership then you have very few rights when you split up or one of you dies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law_marriage#United_Kingdom
http://www.divorce.co.uk/hottopics/articles/cohabitants.htm

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 14:22

Didn't realise but the legal and taxation aspects of cohabiting vs marriage (UK wise) have been discussed here:

http://forum.downsizer.net/viewtopic.php?t=13107&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

(Sorry I keep posting full addresses but I can't get the URL button to work)

Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 18:52

Quote:
Having the state say what is or isn't a marriage is problematic because its definition will invariably differ from some people's deeply held beliefs.

Here's the definition of marriage according to the Canadian bill:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

How does that differ from your beliefs? Do you think it's an unlawful union? That it's three or more? That there shouldn't be any exclusivity between the partners?

Quote:
In a country like the US, where the state is not supposed to interfere with religion, we value our beliefs and rightly consider it our right not to have the state define our doctrines.

I agree completely. No-one is trying to change your doctrine. No-one wants to change your doctrine (except, perhaps, any members of your church who might be affected by said doctrine, but, as members, they have the right to attempt to influence said doctrine).

Again, from the Canadian bill:

WHEREAS everyone has the freedom of conscience and religion under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;

WHEREAS nothing in this Act affects the guarantee of freedom of conscience and religion and, in particular, the freedom of members of religious groups to hold and declare their religious beliefs and the freedom of officials of religious groups to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs;
[...]
3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.

Suppose you were Canadian -- can you point out in this bill how the state has defined your doctrine? Even though it expressly, and purposefully, contains language stating that it's not doing so?

Quote:
The real pickel we're in is that the state is ALREADY invovled in this definition of marriage, which is pretty tragic IMHO. Because no matter what, when the final word comes down, someone's definition is going to be labeld as wrong

So, tell me... who's definition of marriage got labeled as wrong in the above?
Other than a polygamist's?

Quote:
and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage,

You keep saying this, but it's still patently false. We are not all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage. If we were, then gay people would be free to get married.

Quote:
those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled.

I keep waiting to hear how your rights and beliefs are being trampled. So far, I have heard none. Not a single shred of evidence that the state is trying to force you, or any church, to hold gay weddings against your desires, or beliefs.

Quote:
And when I say this, I mean it equally as strong for those on either side of the issue.

Of course... otherwise, you would have given in, already.

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 22:37

How do you feel about mormons having multiple wives? Do you think it should be allowed and recognized by the state, or should it remain illegal?

Posted by: Anonymous

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 22:44

Quote:
Quote:
After all, it's my constitutional right!

You really need to decide if you're a student at UTwente in the Netherlands or a gun-toting redneck from Louisiana. For example.

Gun-toting is also protected by the US constitution BTW.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 12/06/2006 23:12

It only protects gun-toting by US citizens on US soil. You meet neither qualification, right?

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 00:54

Quote:
How do you feel about mormons having multiple wives? Do you think it should be allowed and recognized by the state, or should it remain illegal?

Bill Bennett tried that argument, and Jon Stewart ate his lunch. Please come up with something new.

BENNETT: What do you say to the polygamists? What do you say to the polygamists?

STEWART: You don’t say anything to the polygamists. That is a choice to get three or four wives. That is not a biological condition that I gots to get laid by three or 4 women that I’m married to. That’s a choice. Being gay is part of the human condition. There’s a huge difference.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 02:10

Quote:
How do you feel about mormons having multiple wives? Do you think it should be allowed and recognized by the state, or should it remain illegal?

I don't care if it's mormons. I think any combination of human beings should be allowed to be "married." It's a contract between between the people involved. Everyone else (gorvernment / church / etc.) should just stay the hell out of it. And polygamy is not just multiple wives. It includes multiple husbands as well.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 03:58

Quote:
It includes multiple husbands as well.

As an illustration of how many nested levels of hypocrisy there are... Mormons (the only measurable polygamist subculture in the U.S.) would not agree with that statement, and would shun any marriage involving more than one man. So, the counterexample used by mental giants like Bill Bennett and our own Billy is, in fact, demonstrative of the underlying problem -- intolerance of marriages which don't conform to your preconceived notions of what a marriage should be.

That said, I do believe polygamy (specifically polygyny, but go ahead and throw polyandry and group marriage in there if you like) is one concept of marriage that ought not to be sanctioned by the state, and I'm pretty strongly in the anti-polygamy camp.

Does this make me a hypocrite? No. Because, despite my belief that polygamy is not a marriage states ought to endorse, I also would be very much opposed to a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that prohibits states from making this decision for themselves (and to think, the Republicans used to be the States' rights party.) Utah's state constitution specifically prohibits polygamy, but we all know they're very soft on enforcement in predominantly Mormon areas. Were Utah to suddenly change this position and openly sanction polygamy, I would be fine with that. Were any other state (even my own) to decide that any combination of men and women could legally form a "marriage" that would not bother me in the least. Because, while I personally find these marriages distasteful and bad for society, I think those decisions are best made in state capitals and not Capitol Hill.

Really though, the gay marriage issue is over. While the polls suggest a slim majority of the country is against same sex marriages, they also show that a very large majority are against the federal government making this decision.

Furthermore, I would say that the reign of "social conservatives" in America is nearing its end as well. At some point, social conservatives are going to have to understand that the only reason they've had this country by the balls for 6+ years is because of the fragile union they formed with "paleoconservatives" (the small government, low taxes, Reaganomics types) and the "neoconservatives" (the bomb Iraq, bomb Iran, pump lots of cheap oil types) during the Clinton years. Tthat fragile union is already disintegrating, and without the other factions of the party, social conservatives are going to suddenly realize that the "God, Gays, and Guns" platform was just a Karl Rove bait-and-switch, and that hatred and intolerance have no place in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 06:26

Quote:
Because, while I personally find these marriages distasteful and bad for society, I think those decisions are best made in state capitals and not Capitol Hill.

I'll accept your "distasteful" comment, but is your baseless claim that these marriages are "bad for society" any different that the so-called "arguments" that the religious right uses against gay marriage? What research have you done to determine their negative effect on society?

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 11:04

Quote:
Quote:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.
How does that differ from your beliefs?

Well, my beliefs are that marriage is between a man and a woman only, so in that way.

Quote:
Quote:
In a country like the US, where the state is not supposed to interfere with religion, we value our beliefs and rightly consider it our right not to have the state define our doctrines.
I agree completely. No-one is trying to change your doctrine.

Small word difference here, but I didn't say the state would "change" my beliefs, but "define" them. If I believe marriage is between a man and a woman only, and the state defines marriage as "any two persons", then the state has defined something differently that what I believe. In fact, if I believed marriage were between any two persons and the state defined it as between a man and a woman (the current situation for homosexuals), then the state would also be defining a belief different from my own. No, the state isn't changing my belief, but for the state to have a standard on an matter that really should be up to personal decision is, in my opinion, in violation of the spirit of freedom upon which the US was founded.

Quote:
Suppose you were Canadian -- can you point out in this bill how the state has defined your doctrine?

I have a dotrine of marriage that says one thing, and the state has a different definition. I realize that the state hasn't forced me to believe something, but when the state defines something like this where people have different, very strong beliefs, it violates the spirit of freedom of belief.

Quote:
Quote:
and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage,
You keep saying this, but it's still patently false. We are not all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage. If we were, then gay people would be free to get married.

Aren't they? It isn't against the law for gay people to get married is it? No one is fined; no one goes to jail. The question is whether the state recognizes the marriage, and whether the gay couple can receive the social benifits of a married couple, right? Which are important issues, I agree, and the reason that whole quote is "and while we are all free to behave as we wish with regards to marriage, those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled". Certainly many gay people feel that their right to define their own belief about marriage is being trampled under the current laws, even if they were allowed the social benifits of being married without the title.

Quote:
Quote:
those who have differening beliefs than those recognized by the state are going to feel that their fundamental right to define their own beliefs is being trampled.
I keep waiting to hear how your rights and beliefs are being trampled. So far, I have heard none. Not a single shred of evidence that the state is trying to force you, or any church, to hold gay weddings against your desires, or beliefs.

I'm really not trying to be nitpicky here, but the important word here is "feel", and I meant it on either side of the issue. People are going to "feel" that their right to define their own belief about marriage is being trampled whenever it differs from what the state establishes. You are right that in truth, no one would have to agree with the state definied definition of marriage in practice (which is what I said in the first part of the quote, and the reason I said it), but once again, in a country where freedom of belief is not only recognized but held up is one of its greatest strengths, for the state to so blatently condratict a persons deeply felt belief is going to violate the spirit that important freedom. From what I understand, some homosexuals would be fine with having civil unions so they can have the social rights, but many also feel that this would create a second class, not equal to the married folks. Understandable, because we ALL should have the right to define marriage and what that means according to our own beleifs without interference from the state. What the state says or doesn't say about marriage is hugly important, and when it contradicts people then it disenfranchises them.

Which is why I come back to the only solution being silence on the part of the state. To not define marriage as only this or including that, but to have legal ways to establish relationships to handle issues like adoption, inheritence, insurance, etc.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 11:19

Quote:
Quote:
Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

How does that differ from your beliefs?

And my beliefs aren't the only ones that differ from that definition. The following definitions are different from the one stated:

-Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others.

-Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of persons to the exclusion of all others.

-Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of persons.

Which one of these is correct? Why should the state be putting stipulations on marriage at all (the sex, the number, the exclusivity)? Which aspects should be legislated, and why those?

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 13:42

Quote:
What research have you done to determine their negative effect on society?

This, for starters. The key graph:

''It's a mathematical thing. If you are marrying all these girls to one man, what do you do with all the boys?" said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who has had boys in his office crying to see their mothers. ''People have said to me: 'Why don't you prosecute the parents?' But the kids don't want their parents prosecuted; they want us to get the number one bad guy -- Warren Jeffs. He is chiefly responsible for kicking out these boys."

Aside from the "mathematical thing" where men cannot marry because there are no available wives, polygyny elevates the role of one of the married individuals (the man) and diminishes the role of the rest of them (the women.) The man is ALWAYS the center of the family unit and the final decision-maker, the wives are just accessories. In documentaries I've watched on polygamy among Mormons, I've never seen it exist without some obvious form of misogyny. (Fundamentalist Islam, which allows 4 wives per husband IIRC, is full of misogyny, and presumably suffers from the same "mathematical problem.")

Same-sex relationships involving two individuals suffer from neither the "mathematical problem" of skewing the marriage number, nor the problem where a subset of the individuals is relegated to second-class citizen status because of their gender.

You can argue that the factors I've mentinoed are all "implementation details" specific to one type of polygamist, and I'll grant you that maybe it's wrong of me to conclude that "polygamy is bad for society" based on this one example. But in American society, in 2006, I don't think there's any appreciable trend towards either polyandry or group marriage, so it's silly to talk about those, IMHO.

I hope I've explained both the source of my aversion to polygamy, and why holding that view is not inconsistent with my support of rights for same-sex couples. (A point which was made simply to debunk the "slippery slope" argument that gay marriage will lead to polygamy will lead to men marrying sheep.) If not, let me know what's unclear and I'll try to clarify.

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 14:19

Just lost a huge post that I'd written in reply, bugger.

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 15:02

This is the gist of the post I lost:

ALL Islam allows polygamy under a strict set of circumstances that include:

Agreement of existing partner(s)
Guaranteed equality of treatment of wives
Ability to support additional cost burden

Of course in general those that practise polygamy take very little notice of the rules, but then in a free society they'd probably be the ones that have mistresses, having a mistress in an Islamic society is not tolerated in the way it is in the West, social standing would plummet.

My parents families who are largely small scale farmers in rural Pakistan do not practise polygamy, within their communities it's an extremely rare (and declining) occurrence, I believe this to be the case in Islamic societies worldwide (even in ultra conservative countries like Saudi).

Whether multi partner relationships should be afforded the same rights as single partner ones is a huge question but to my mind it's difficult to see why the state should be involved in a group of individuals family structure. I also can't see why being brought up in a multi partner relationship vs an unfaithful one should impact children more, I've known friends whose parents were having affairs, which is worse? Which impacts society in a more negative way?

As regards misogyny there's plenty of that and other ills in the Islamic world, to a greater extent than the rest of the developing world? I don't think so, remember that Sati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_%28practice%29) is still practised to some extent in India, I'm sure there are plenty of examples of oppression and discrimination that could be brought up from around the world. The sad fact is that even allegedly civilised countries didn't see the need to treat genders or races equally till relatively recently.

I'm not trying to defend polygamy, just saying I can't see a case for government involvement in interpersonal relationships.

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 15:48

Quote:
ALL Islam allows polygamy under a strict set of circumstances that include:

Agreement of existing partner(s)
Guaranteed equality of treatment of wives
Ability to support additional cost burden

It'd be more precise to say that ALL Islam allows polygyny under those circumstances, yes? Multiple husbands to one wife is, IIRC, strictly forbidden. That in and of itself smacks of misogyny to me, and though I'm sure Muslims have an explanation as to why it's not (such as "Muslim women would never want such a relationship because of X Y Z in the Qu'ran") I think there's an inherent inequality there that can't be justified by religious doctrine.

Quote:

My parents families who are largely small scale farmers in rural Pakistan do not practise polygamy, within their communities it's an extremely rare (and declining) occurrence, I believe this to be the case in Islamic societies worldwide (even in ultra conservative countries like Saudi).

To be clear, I brought Islam into the mix simply because I needed another widely known example of polygamy. I didn't say that polygamy was the normal state of Islamic countries, just as it is not the normal state of today's Mormon church. But it is accepted to an extent, and I needed examples of that in order to form the rest of my argument.

Quote:

As regards misogyny there's plenty of that and other ills in the Islamic world, to a greater extent than the rest of the developing world?

You've completely misappropriated my words. I said that fundamentalist Islam is full of misogyny, not that there's more misogyny in Muslim countries than there is in the west. Certainly, the misogyny in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. are much more overt (clothing, womens' access to education, etc.) but I made no comparison between cultures. Again, my statement on Islam was just one parenthetical phrase, cited as an example of polygamy, and not any attempt to criticize the religion or the cultures which practice it.

Quote:

I'm not trying to defend polygamy, just saying I can't see a case for government involvement in interpersonal relationships.

You and I are in total agreement that "the state" shouldn't be involved in these things, but they are. In the U.S., "the state" can refer to actual states, or the federal government, which in the case of a Constitutional amendment, would supersede the states. My argument, put simply, is that states ought to have a right to regulate marriage however they see fit, and while I don't agree with polygamy as an acceptable practice, I would not want the federal government legislating that. I would have no problem, however, allowing certain states to do that, and that's probably the one detail where you and I differ.

Posted by: peter

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 15:56

Quote:
Whether multi partner relationships should be afforded the same rights as single partner ones is a huge question but to my mind it's difficult to see why the state should be involved in a group of individuals family structure. [...] I'm not trying to defend polygamy, just saying I can't see a case for government involvement in interpersonal relationships.

I suspect originally it was to encourage population growth, but nowadays it's probably more to do with relationships as support structures: in a marriage, if illness or unemployment or whatever strikes one partner, the other partner will do all they can to shoulder the burden. An unmarried person would end up being more of a burden to the state instead. So it's in the state's advantage to encourage these little support networks; IIRC, in the UK at least, members of religious orders enjoy some of the same tax breaks as married couples, probably because again the religious order is taking some of the support burden away from the state.

Which would tend to imply that, at least where the multi-partner relationship isn't more socially dysfunctional than it's worth (no constant stream of discarded wives), the state probably should promote it.

Peter

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 16:14

Quote:
That in and of itself smacks of misogyny to me, and though I'm sure Muslims have an explanation as to why it's not (such as "Muslim women would never want such a relationship because of X Y Z in the Qu'ran") I think there's an inherent inequality there that can't be justified by religious doctrine.

You're right, it's polygyny, I don't think anyone would argue that Muslim women would never want multiple partners.

As I understand it polygyny has existed in all of the Abrahamic religions. The Islamic justification (I'm no scholar so this isn't 100% certainty) is that male mortality used to be greater due to the more direct methods of justice administered as well as the greater loss in inter tribal/national wars etc in the times of the day. The intent was to provide welfare for women that were perhaps widows or otherwise left uncared for. Over the centuries since this facility has been abused to the max, even now there are brothels in the muslim world (I've been told) where you may be married prior to your "appointment" and divorced straight after.

Quote:
You've completely misappropriated my words. I said that fundamentalist Islam is full of misogyny, not that there's more misogyny in Muslim countries than there is in the west.

You seemed to be implying that Islam was peculiarly susceptible to misogyny, I didn't intend to misappropriate your words.

Quote:
My argument, put simply, is that states ought to have a right to regulate marriage however they see fit, and while I don't agree with polygamy as an acceptable practice, I would not want the federal government legislating that. I would have no problem, however, allowing certain states to do that, and that's probably the one detail where you and I differ.

Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?

Just seen Peter's post, I'm sure there was an element of that too.

Posted by: mlord

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 16:45

Quote:
misogyny

From the FireFox dictionary tooltip extension (link):

Hatred of women: "Every organized patriarchal religion works overtime to contribute its own brand of misogyny" Robin Morgan.

-ml

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 16:55

Quote:
Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?

I'll try to answer your question by example.

Until the mid-1990s, 55 miles per hour was the federally-mandated maximum speed limit states could allow on highways. These days, states are free to set their own speed limits. In fact, Texas was recently considering raising some Interstate speed limits to 80mph (they may have already done so.) Some would say this is too fast, and will cost lives. But there are a lot of different viewpoints, and those viewpoints vary greatly throughout the country.

So, do speed limits belong at the federal or state level? Let's look at the Texas situation. Here's a matrix of how Texas raising the speed limit to 80mph affects various groups of people:

Code:


                         Live outside Texas         Live in Texas
Support 80mph+                   A                       B
Oppose 80mph+                    C                       D

Group A (live outside Texas, support 80mph) and Group B (Live in Texas, support 80mph) are both happy. Group B is more directly affected, but Group A is also happy, because there's now a state where someone is trying out the higher speed limits they support, and maybe if it goes well, momentum will build for higher limits in their own state.

Groups C and D are less happy. Group D is the most unhappy, because they may have to travel the Interstate roads where the limits are higher. Group C is unhappy about Texas allowing the higher speeds, but isn't as directly affected by it.

Though these groups are both unhappy, I think they are both better off than if the decision had been made at the federal level. Group D can challenge the state law they disagree with, and they have a much better chance to succeed than if they chose to fight a federal law (state governments move much faster than the feds, and are more responsive to local needs.) Group C, on the other hand, is also well served, because their state is not subject to the law they consider unjust, and they can work to effect change in their state to make sure no such law comes about in the future.

The speed limit example is a bit contrived, but illustrates the type of laws that I think are best left to the states. These are laws where there is no national concensus, and where state and local officials have a better handle on what's good for the greatest number of their constituents. I feel marriage falls into this category, as do other things decided at the state level, such as restrictions on liquor sales, gambling, prostitution, etc.

Posted by: peter

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 17:03

Quote:
So, do speed limits belong at the federal or state level?

In the light of which argumentation, it's probably worth mentioning that in my post above (and actually almost always in my posts), when I say "the state" I mean it in the general sense of "the government", not intending to specify to Americans whether I'm talking about State or Federal government...

Peter

Posted by: webroach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 17:12

Tony, thanks for such a clear reply. Pehaps I should have been a little more clear; I'm not talking about mormon-style polygyny. That is a religious issue and is aimed at glorifying the male. Not cool.

But can you explain to me how different combinations of consenting adults being comitted to each other (as in one male and two females, one female and two males, two males and two females, etc.) are harmful to society? When everyone is there by choice, and lives as an equal?

Posted by: Mataglap

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 13/06/2006 23:44

Quote:
Probably, why is there such a distinction between state legislation and federal regulation for you?

I'm not sure if some of the specific details and evolution of the United States federal goverment get lost overseas or with people who don't particularly care, so Iet me throw out a response to this.

The U.S. Constitution specifies the powers of Congress, the limits on Congress, the limits on the States, and in Amendment 10 says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

The importance of the state goverments is easily missed, especially when they are very much overshadowed by the size of the federal goverment.

Personally, I think that many of us (Americans) kick tough issues to the state level as a way of dodging the issue or at least pretending/hoping that by dealing with it at the state level there might be a way for most people to accept the results.

On the other hand, I think there's an arguement to be made that after many years of increasing federal power the pendulum might be slowing down and power of the individual states might be beginning to increase.

--Nathan

Posted by: Mataglap

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 00:08

Quote:
...it violates the spirit of freedom of belief.

Hey Jeff,

You mentioned the "freedom of belief" a lot in one of your posts. The words "belief" and "believe" aren't in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, or any of the Amendments including the Bill of Rights. (rebellion and belong are as close as it gets.) So what do you mean by it?

--Nathan

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 01:59

Quote:
The words "belief" and "believe" aren't in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution, or any of the Amendments including the Bill of Rights.

Are you arguing that the government has the right to tell people what to believe? That's pretty hard to reconcile with the spirit of the first ammendment, which guarantees us the rights to communicate what we want, petition for what we want, and practice religion the way we want without government interference. All of that freedom would be fairly wasted if the government were aloud to establish what we believe. "Yes, you have the freedom to say what you want, but you are not aloud to believe the things you are saying, so you're in trouble now . . ."

In fact, if we don't have the freedom to believe what we will, why doesn't the government just tell us all to agree that the war in Iraq is good and throw anyone in jail who believes differently?

Quote:
So what do you mean by it?

What I mean by it is simply that we all have the right to think whatever we want and that it is not the governments job to correct our mis-beliefs. The government should reflect the beliefs of the people, not impose beliefs upon them.

Edit: Also, "Life liberty and the persuit of hapiness" also strongly suggests the freedom to believe what we want.

Posted by: julf

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 06:15

Quote:
What I mean by it is simply that we all have the right to think whatever we want and that it is not the governments job to correct our mis-beliefs.

Ahh. So government-funded education is bad? I know Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) would agree with that, but...

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 10:51

Quote:
Ahh. So government-funded education is bad? I know Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) would agree with that, but...

That's a different issue altogether. Public education teaches us how to learn and to apply our minds, leading to a more educated (and better) society. It's not so much about correcting mis-beliefs as providing people the tools they need to be productive citizens.

Are we really going to argue about whether US citizens are afforded the right do define and act on their own beliefs? It seems to me that one of the biggest complaints I hear from liberals* is that conservative policies are telling the rest of the country what to believe. I don't think it's always the case when the accusation is made (though sometimes it is), but I never question the underlying assumption that it is not right for the government to impose beliefs upon people.

The spirit of the constitution is that US citizens should be free to be persue their own happiness as long as they do not abridge this right in others. How can personal belief not be fundamental to this persuit?

*"Liberal" meaning those with more progressive politics, not as a bad word

Posted by: Mataglap

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 12:16

So what about the people who believe the Earth is flat? Should we crash every satellite out there and shutdown NASA because orbital mechanics support the belief that the Earth is spherish?

Beliefs can't enter into the conversation. Not if it's going to be civilized debate. Not if it's about laws in America. When any side makes it about belief, everyone is suddenly forced into a corner with no where to go. Once they do, it almost always ends in repression or violence.

--Nathan

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 13:03

Quote:
So what about the people who believe the Earth is flat?

That have the right to that belief. Why wouldn't they?

Quote:
Should we crash every satellite out there and shutdown NASA because orbital mechanics support the belief that the Earth is spherish?

Of course not. Sure we have public funding going toward an organization that not everyone believes in- that's nothing new. The flat earth society still has a right to its beliefs, but the fact remains that society benifits from having those satellites in orbit.

Quote:
Beliefs can't enter into the conversation. Not if it's going to be civilized debate. Not if it's about laws in America. When any side makes it about belief, everyone is suddenly forced into a corner with no where to go. Once they do, it almost always ends in repression or violence.

Beliefs MUST enter into the conversation. If it were not for belief, we'd have very few laws.

Murder is illegal because we believe it to be wrong.
Stealing is illegal because we believe it to be wrong.
Almost everything against the law is there because we as a society BELIEVE it to be wrong.

How can someone's rights be abridged unless we have some belief about what those rights are?

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 15:16

Quote:
But can you explain to me how different combinations of consenting adults being comitted to each other (as in one male and two females, one female and two males, two males and two females, etc.) are harmful to society? When everyone is there by choice, and lives as an equal?

To be honest, I probably can't come up with a satisfactory explanation for that. I have a "hunch" that these kinds of relationships wouldn't really be beneficial for society, but I can't explain why, as I'm not an expert on psychology or sociology or whatever field of study would deal with this kind of thing. It seems to me that getting two parents to agree on how to raise a child is hard enough, so adding more would confound things even worse, but of course I can't prove that notion.

So, my "personally distasteful" statement stands, but the "bad for society" part just applies to the real-world examples of polygamy I'm familiar with.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 16:30

Quote:
But can you explain to me how different combinations of consenting adults being comitted to each other (as in one male and two females, one female and two males, two males and two females, etc.) are harmful to society? When everyone is there by choice, and lives as an equal?
Quote:
To be honest, I probably can't come up with a satisfactory explanation for that. I have a "hunch" that these kinds of relationships wouldn't really be beneficial for society, but I can't explain why, as I'm not an expert on psychology or sociology or whatever field of study would deal with this kind of thing.

I appreciate your honesty, but don't you see that this is a huge part of the problem with the issue of gay marriage? That people are against it without really understanding why? Without really knowing the realities of it?

Quote:
It seems to me that getting two parents to agree on how to raise a child is hard enough, so adding more would confound things even worse, but of course I can't prove that notion.

Please remember that not everybody views bearing and rasing children as a goal to be accomplished. Some of us never want children.

Quote:
So, my "personally distasteful" statement stands, but the "bad for society" part just applies to the real-world examples of polygamy I'm familiar with.

Well, being a strong athiest, I can't say I have anything to do with your "real-world examples" that you're familiar with, but I'm sure TWMBO will be pleased to know that they (we?) are merely "distasteful" and not necessarily "bad for society".

Posted by: tonyc

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 17:14

Quote:

I appreciate your honesty, but don't you see that this is a huge part of the problem with the issue of gay marriage? That people are against it without really understanding why? Without really knowing the realities of it?

Sure, but I don't want to ban anyone from doing anything, whereas those pushing this amendment do. My personal aversion towards polygamy is tempered by my fondness for civil liberties.

Quote:
Please remember that not everybody views bearing and rasing children as a goal to be accomplished. Some of us never want children.

Yeah, in the part you quoted I'm obviously speaking of just those who've decided they do want kids.

Quote:
Well, being a strong athiest, I can't say I have anything to do with your "real-world examples" that you're familiar with, but I'm sure TWMBO will be pleased to know that they (we?) are merely "distasteful" and not necessarily "bad for society".

Hey, you asked for my opinions and I gave them to you. It's not like you average American has a lot of exposure to polygamy outside of the well-known examples I've cited, whereas most people have at some point come into contact with a homosexual friend or family member. If one of my childhood friends had two moms and three dads around the house, maybe my opinions would be different, but that's not how things worked out.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 17:23

Don't misunderstand, Tony. I think you're putting forth a very honest point of view, and I respect that. And I just realized that my "wink" accidentally became a "smile". While nothing I said was untrue, the intent was as good-natured ribbing, nothing more.

Posted by: DLF

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 17:39

Quote:

snip snip snip

Please remember that not everybody views bearing and rasing children as a goal to be accomplished. Some of us never want children.

Quote:
So, my "personally distasteful" statement stands, but the "bad for society" part just applies to the real-world examples of polygamy I'm familiar with.

Well, being a strong athiest, I can't say I have anything to do with your "real-world examples" that you're familiar with, but I'm sure TWMBO will be pleased to know that they (we?) are merely "distasteful" and not necessarily "bad for society".

Ditto from this strongly non-atheist Dave and his own S.O.

Posted by: Mataglap

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 20:01

Quote:
How can someone's rights be abridged unless we have some belief about what those rights are?

We don't need to have some belief about what those rights are, it's explictly written down. And interpreted and expanded and clarified in writing via legislative laws and judical decisions with accountability and traceability. It's right here in black and white.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 14/06/2006 22:26

Quote:
Ditto from this strongly non-atheist Dave and his own S.O.

Errr.... ditto to which part?

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 00:56

Quote:
Murder is illegal because we believe it to be wrong.
Stealing is illegal because we believe it to be wrong.
Almost everything against the law is there because we as a society BELIEVE it to be wrong.

How can someone's rights be abridged unless we have some belief about what those rights are?

It seems to me that taking things from another individual without his consent is the basis for that act being illegal. That is empirical. There are a few "victimless" crimes here and there (which I personally believe are immoral laws), but they are fairly few and far between.

However, in no way does two men getting married take anything from you. I can guarantee that none of the rights guaranteed by this country is that you are guaranteed to agree with every decision made. Especially the ones that don't affect you.

I can totally understand why you find homosexuality icky. What I still cannot comprehend is why you think it has anything to do with you. No one getting married will affect you in any way, homo- or heterosexual. Denying gay people marriage won't change the way they live; it will only show them how much we as a society dislike them.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 07:55

Quote:
it will only show them how much we as a society dislike them.

"Dislike them" is not strong enough a term.

How about "perceive them to be less than human."?

Or maybe "treat them as something less than our equals"?

Posted by: tahir

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 09:12

Quote:
Or maybe "treat them as something less than our equals"?

I think that's the most accurate description

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 10:06

Quote:
However, in no way does two men getting married take anything from you.

All I was saying in that post is that in general the law comes from our beliefs as a society (which you agree with, I think). I was not even meaning to imply that gay marriage should be opposed based on my beliefs, becuse that's not my view. I wasn't really addressing gay marraige at all, more this side thread that got started about whether US citiziens have the freedom to their beliefs and how the government is alloud to interfere with those beliefs.

I agree that two men getting maried does not affect me. How people choose to couple is a personal thing that really doesn't affect anyone else but those invovled. So why should the government have rules about it?

I think it IS overstepping the role of the government to definine these relationships and what is/isn't permissable.

Ideas about what marriage is or isn't are personal. You cannot observe the world through science and decide, yes that's a marriage and that isn't. Marriage is a decidedly human thing, and what it means is signficantly different from couple to couple, yet many are passionate about it just the same.

For the government to step in and start clarifiying this definition in any way is to disenfranchise that group of people whom disagree. Sometimes this is unavoidable- there must be a ruling so that action may be taken. On this issue that is not necessary. It is very possible to give heterosexual couples, gay couples and polyamorus relationiships the same rights under the law without having to deem any of their beliefs wrong under the law.

Posted by: tfabris

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 18:26

Quote:
For the government to step in and start clarifiying this definition in any way is to disenfranchise that group of people whom disagree.

Isn't this exactly what they're trying to do by attempting a constitutional amendment defining marriage? The very thing that started this thread?

I thought you were disagreeing with the initial point of this thread. It sounds like you're agreeing with it here. I'm confused.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 18:57

Quote:
I thought you were disagreeing with the initial point of this thread. It sounds like you're agreeing with it here.

No, I wasn't diagreeing with the initial point, which is why I took so long to get invovled. I started with the notion that many conservatives are not upset by gay people getting married, but rather that the state would re-define a belief that they are very passionate about (their view of what marriage is). But in saying this, I also tried to point out that I understand it from the other side, and that just because I have a certain belief about marriage doesn't mean that others should be required to agree. Where I end up is that the government should be moving out of the marriage defining business altogether. So my stance really sums up to this:

-I do not agree with the constitutional ammendment, nor do I really think it has much of a chance of passing.

-I would oppose an ammendment or law which recognizes gay marriages legally.

-I would support support civil unions that give homosexuals the same rights that a married couple has.

-I would most like to see turning current marriages into civil unions and getting government out of the marriage business altogether in an effort to prevent a "2nd class citizen" culture from being sanctioned by the government.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 19:09

Quote:
I do not agree with the constitutional ammendment, nor do I really think it has much of a chance of passing. I would, however, oppose an ammendment or law which recognizes gay marriages legally. I would support support civil unions that give homosexuals the same rights that a married couple has.

Jeff, this statement contradicts your claim that you feel the government should not define marriage. By defining what marriage is not, you are defining marriage.

How is saying "marriage is NOT between gay individuals" not equivalent with "marriage is ONLY one man and one woman" ?

This is nothing more than semantics.

Posted by: JeffS

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 19:15

First off, I changed my post a bit to be a little more clear, but didn't get to it before your response. The content is still there, though. Sorry about that.

Quote:
Jeff, this statement contradicts your claim that you feel the government should not define marriage. By defining what marriage is not, you are defining marriage.

I do feel the government should not define marriage. The problem right now is that it already does (which is why gay marriages are not recognized legally). Hence the reason for my last comment that what I really want is for there to be no marriages at all, only civil unions. That, I think, is the only solution fair to all.

Posted by: webroach

Re: Finally, America is safe! - 15/06/2006 19:20

I think you're right. They should simply remove all benefits from marriage (tax, legal rights, etc.) and let people have whatever type of civil union they desire (which would deal with all the benefits once held by marriage).

The last part of your comment was not left out to intentionally skew your meaning. I think your most recent post clarifies things quite well.

Finally, America is safe!